|
On July 22 2015 19:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2015 19:11 Cascade wrote:On July 22 2015 18:32 Oshuy wrote:On July 22 2015 17:26 Simberto wrote:
The fact of the matter is that most sciences have a least a hundred years of very smart people thinking about them under the hood. Some, like physics, have a few thousand. At this point, the bulk of knowledge is simply so great that the surface is so well tested that to come up with something new and exciting, you basically need to go deeper and already have a lot of education in the field to understand the surface.
Things like newtonian physics or laws of thermodynamics have been around for a while. If there was an obvious and easy way to disprove them with household appliances, there is a pretty high chance that it would have already happened.
This does not mean that you should simply believe in authorities. Luckily with science, you don't have to. You can look up the experiments and explanations that lead to the common believe (Even online at this point). But if you are too lazy or too stupid to understand those, chances are that you did not suddenly come up with something entirely new and genius. Once you have understood the common theories, you can try to disprove them. You can always take the sum of all the observations that have been made and consider them as points in a multi dimensional space of some kind. An accepted theory will match within an acceptable margin with any point it has been measured against and predict values in its domain of application for study/analysis/use. However, it will always remain one out of an infinite number of representation for all those other points. There is theory, perfectly valid for anything we know, with the only difference that if I drop my coffee right now, instead of falling it turns into a unicorn that races through the wall and out in the sky beyhond... And now I have to mop up and buy a new mug. All jokes aside, the reason why one specific theory matching observations emerges is still an interesting one. It is just a matter of understanding nature better and better. Accurate understanding will generalise better than ad-hoc understanding. Let me make a nonsensical example. Observation: It hurts if I run into a rock. Theory 1: It hurts to run into grey things. Theory 2: It hurts to run into hard things. Both describe data so far. Experiment: Run into a red brick wall. Observation: it hurts to run into a red brick wall. Theory 1: conflicts with observations. Corrected model 1.1: It hurts to run into grey things, or things with square patterns. Theory 2: accurately predicted observation, does not need to be corrected. Experiment: Run into a bouncy castle with square patterns. I think you can guess what goes her, but it'll have to involve a theory 1.2.  As we continue and do more experiments, it is "easy" to separate the theories that actually describe nature from the theories that just happen to describe the data it was made to fit. So I think that the one theory we are left with that describes all the data is the most likely to actually describe what is going on in reality (if you allow me to take a positivist view here). We cannot know for sure that model 1.1 (and the 1.2 that will be needed...) isn't actually the true model ("true model" here refers to the models that predicts all future observations), so some kind of leap of faith has to be made to say that it is reflecting nature. Many would point to Occam's razor here, but I think what I am trying to say is slightly different, and a bit easier to swallow: A theory that successfully predicts observations is more likely to continue to predict experiments than a theory that has to be adjusted for each new observation. So after our experiments above, we would start leaning towards theory 2 over theory 1.2. Not beacuse theory 2 is simpler (as would be Occam's razors argument), but because it successfully predicted an observation, while theory 1.2 hasn't predicted anything, only described existing observations. Of course, someone may have come up with theory 1.2 already after the first observation (I don't see many paying attention to it at that point, but let's pretend...), and at that point we would be equally leaning towards theory 2 and 1.2. Until we perform more experiments, that eventually will force 1.2 to be modified again, putting out of favour. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that the reason some theories stick around, is that they actually describe some aspect of nature. There, one sentence. I think that makes a good point as to how an average person can stumble upon theory 2.1 and not even realize it. If you don't understand any of the theories (well), then you don't have certain expectations. As a result you end up trying things anyone with any understanding of Theory 1, 1.2, speculation on 1.3 or 2 would never even consider. You approach the entire concept differently than any of the "experts" and as a result you may stumble into something that breaks what we know (at least as we know it) and there you have 2.1 and no one even knows we found it. The internet provides the opportunity to take Theory 0.3 on line for millions of people in the hopes that maybe just maybe they'll stumble onto Theory 2.1 or the more realistic ones are just hoping someone who comes to prove them wrong, notices they actually exposed at minimum that a Theory 2.1 is now needed. It's basically like playing the Mega Millions lottery but with way worse odds and the ever so slight ability to manipulate them. I suggest those videos exist for many of the same reasons people play the lottery.
One issue is 99.99...% of laymen will stumble in something that is covered by both 1.x and 2.0, but misread their experimental conditions or their results and generate noise.
I however, have just managed a breakthrough: I repeated the experiment with the grey rock. I can confirm from personal experience that after a few runs it hurts less to smash into it. This means the hurt factor of an object is finite and consumed by repeated shocks. I also realized that the rock got a little less grey and a little more red as the tries went on.
Therefore theory 1 is true, regardless of what the official theory 2 wants us to believe: the greyness of the rock is the hurting factor, which depletes as it is used to provide the hurt, to be replaced by the nominal reddity of the material.
I intend to analyze in further experiments on the red brick wall to disprove current established theory that is wrongly defended by those scientist that blindly follow dogma. Initial data already suggest that the part of the wall where I crash gets darker in the last steps before the impact. On explanation could be that brick walls rely on a defense mecanism to get greyer before impact, therefore increasing their hurting potential.
|
On July 22 2015 19:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2015 19:11 Cascade wrote:On July 22 2015 18:32 Oshuy wrote:On July 22 2015 17:26 Simberto wrote:
The fact of the matter is that most sciences have a least a hundred years of very smart people thinking about them under the hood. Some, like physics, have a few thousand. At this point, the bulk of knowledge is simply so great that the surface is so well tested that to come up with something new and exciting, you basically need to go deeper and already have a lot of education in the field to understand the surface.
Things like newtonian physics or laws of thermodynamics have been around for a while. If there was an obvious and easy way to disprove them with household appliances, there is a pretty high chance that it would have already happened.
This does not mean that you should simply believe in authorities. Luckily with science, you don't have to. You can look up the experiments and explanations that lead to the common believe (Even online at this point). But if you are too lazy or too stupid to understand those, chances are that you did not suddenly come up with something entirely new and genius. Once you have understood the common theories, you can try to disprove them. You can always take the sum of all the observations that have been made and consider them as points in a multi dimensional space of some kind. An accepted theory will match within an acceptable margin with any point it has been measured against and predict values in its domain of application for study/analysis/use. However, it will always remain one out of an infinite number of representation for all those other points. There is theory, perfectly valid for anything we know, with the only difference that if I drop my coffee right now, instead of falling it turns into a unicorn that races through the wall and out in the sky beyhond... And now I have to mop up and buy a new mug. All jokes aside, the reason why one specific theory matching observations emerges is still an interesting one. It is just a matter of understanding nature better and better. Accurate understanding will generalise better than ad-hoc understanding. Let me make a nonsensical example. Observation: It hurts if I run into a rock. Theory 1: It hurts to run into grey things. Theory 2: It hurts to run into hard things. Both describe data so far. Experiment: Run into a red brick wall. Observation: it hurts to run into a red brick wall. Theory 1: conflicts with observations. Corrected model 1.1: It hurts to run into grey things, or things with square patterns. Theory 2: accurately predicted observation, does not need to be corrected. Experiment: Run into a bouncy castle with square patterns. I think you can guess what goes her, but it'll have to involve a theory 1.2. As we continue and do more experiments, it is "easy" to separate the theories that actually describe nature from the theories that just happen to describe the data it was made to fit. So I think that the one theory we are left with that describes all the data is the most likely to actually describe what is going on in reality (if you allow me to take a positivist view here). We cannot know for sure that model 1.1 (and the 1.2 that will be needed...) isn't actually the true model ("true model" here refers to the models that predicts all future observations), so some kind of leap of faith has to be made to say that it is reflecting nature. Many would point to Occam's razor here, but I think what I am trying to say is slightly different, and a bit easier to swallow: A theory that successfully predicts observations is more likely to continue to predict experiments than a theory that has to be adjusted for each new observation. So after our experiments above, we would start leaning towards theory 2 over theory 1.2. Not beacuse theory 2 is simpler (as would be Occam's razors argument), but because it successfully predicted an observation, while theory 1.2 hasn't predicted anything, only described existing observations. Of course, someone may have come up with theory 1.2 already after the first observation (I don't see many paying attention to it at that point, but let's pretend...), and at that point we would be equally leaning towards theory 2 and 1.2. Until we perform more experiments, that eventually will force 1.2 to be modified again, putting out of favour. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that the reason some theories stick around, is that they actually describe some aspect of nature. There, one sentence. I think that makes a good point as to how an average person can stumble upon theory 2.1 and not even realize it. If you don't understand any of the theories (well), then you don't have certain expectations. As a result you end up trying things anyone with any understanding of Theory 1, 1.2, speculation on 1.3 or 2 would never even consider. You approach the entire concept differently than any of the "experts" and as a result you may stumble into something that breaks what we know (at least as we know it) and there you have 2.1 and no one even knows we found it. The internet provides the opportunity to take Theory 0.3 on line for millions of people in the hopes that maybe just maybe they'll stumble onto Theory 2.1 or the more realistic ones are just hoping someone who comes to prove them wrong, notices they actually exposed at minimum that a Theory 2.1 is now needed. It's basically like playing the Mega Millions lottery but with way worse odds and the ever so slight ability to manipulate them. I suggest those videos exist for many of the same reasons people play the lottery.
I'd be happy if that were true, but I doubt many, if any, of these self-proclaimed genius inventors acknowledge that their chances of actually have found something useful is smaller than winning the lottery.
I mean, it's a valid view to take from the outside, that the collection of all these people may at some point find something. But I think my question (and Najdas original question before that) is mainly what is going through the mind of these people. How they find the persistence to go on and on and on despite "the experts" not taking them seriously. Do they have some kind of conspiracy theorist inside them, thinking that the experts are trying to hide something or deliberately push down the genius inventor due to political reason X? Or they are just that convinced that they have struck gold and can't fathom how others can't see it, but they'll understand soon. Soon!
|
Oshuy is a liar and a charlatan. Unlike him, I have actually performed the repeated experiment, and found that the results are the exact opposite. The pain increases with repetition! While the rock does become ree, I have observed an interesting phenomenon in my hand, which also becomes red, and starts to liquify! More perplexing still is that with time' the red becomes brown, but my hand becomes bigger, and in addition to brown, shows symptoms of blue and yellowness. The rock never reverts to greyness, but the red, just as on my hand, becomes brown with time. I believe that the pain is not caused by hardness, but by some underlying property that also causes the color variations. Because this falls outside the domain of painology, future work includes collaborating with a colorologist to investigate further. Please PM me if you are a government agency willing to fund such innovative research!
|
On July 22 2015 20:32 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2015 19:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2015 19:11 Cascade wrote:On July 22 2015 18:32 Oshuy wrote:On July 22 2015 17:26 Simberto wrote:
The fact of the matter is that most sciences have a least a hundred years of very smart people thinking about them under the hood. Some, like physics, have a few thousand. At this point, the bulk of knowledge is simply so great that the surface is so well tested that to come up with something new and exciting, you basically need to go deeper and already have a lot of education in the field to understand the surface.
Things like newtonian physics or laws of thermodynamics have been around for a while. If there was an obvious and easy way to disprove them with household appliances, there is a pretty high chance that it would have already happened.
This does not mean that you should simply believe in authorities. Luckily with science, you don't have to. You can look up the experiments and explanations that lead to the common believe (Even online at this point). But if you are too lazy or too stupid to understand those, chances are that you did not suddenly come up with something entirely new and genius. Once you have understood the common theories, you can try to disprove them. You can always take the sum of all the observations that have been made and consider them as points in a multi dimensional space of some kind. An accepted theory will match within an acceptable margin with any point it has been measured against and predict values in its domain of application for study/analysis/use. However, it will always remain one out of an infinite number of representation for all those other points. There is theory, perfectly valid for anything we know, with the only difference that if I drop my coffee right now, instead of falling it turns into a unicorn that races through the wall and out in the sky beyhond... And now I have to mop up and buy a new mug. All jokes aside, the reason why one specific theory matching observations emerges is still an interesting one. It is just a matter of understanding nature better and better. Accurate understanding will generalise better than ad-hoc understanding. Let me make a nonsensical example. Observation: It hurts if I run into a rock. Theory 1: It hurts to run into grey things. Theory 2: It hurts to run into hard things. Both describe data so far. Experiment: Run into a red brick wall. Observation: it hurts to run into a red brick wall. Theory 1: conflicts with observations. Corrected model 1.1: It hurts to run into grey things, or things with square patterns. Theory 2: accurately predicted observation, does not need to be corrected. Experiment: Run into a bouncy castle with square patterns. I think you can guess what goes her, but it'll have to involve a theory 1.2. As we continue and do more experiments, it is "easy" to separate the theories that actually describe nature from the theories that just happen to describe the data it was made to fit. So I think that the one theory we are left with that describes all the data is the most likely to actually describe what is going on in reality (if you allow me to take a positivist view here). We cannot know for sure that model 1.1 (and the 1.2 that will be needed...) isn't actually the true model ("true model" here refers to the models that predicts all future observations), so some kind of leap of faith has to be made to say that it is reflecting nature. Many would point to Occam's razor here, but I think what I am trying to say is slightly different, and a bit easier to swallow: A theory that successfully predicts observations is more likely to continue to predict experiments than a theory that has to be adjusted for each new observation. So after our experiments above, we would start leaning towards theory 2 over theory 1.2. Not beacuse theory 2 is simpler (as would be Occam's razors argument), but because it successfully predicted an observation, while theory 1.2 hasn't predicted anything, only described existing observations. Of course, someone may have come up with theory 1.2 already after the first observation (I don't see many paying attention to it at that point, but let's pretend...), and at that point we would be equally leaning towards theory 2 and 1.2. Until we perform more experiments, that eventually will force 1.2 to be modified again, putting out of favour. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that the reason some theories stick around, is that they actually describe some aspect of nature. There, one sentence. I think that makes a good point as to how an average person can stumble upon theory 2.1 and not even realize it. If you don't understand any of the theories (well), then you don't have certain expectations. As a result you end up trying things anyone with any understanding of Theory 1, 1.2, speculation on 1.3 or 2 would never even consider. You approach the entire concept differently than any of the "experts" and as a result you may stumble into something that breaks what we know (at least as we know it) and there you have 2.1 and no one even knows we found it. The internet provides the opportunity to take Theory 0.3 on line for millions of people in the hopes that maybe just maybe they'll stumble onto Theory 2.1 or the more realistic ones are just hoping someone who comes to prove them wrong, notices they actually exposed at minimum that a Theory 2.1 is now needed. It's basically like playing the Mega Millions lottery but with way worse odds and the ever so slight ability to manipulate them. I suggest those videos exist for many of the same reasons people play the lottery. One issue is 99.99...% of laymen will stumble in something that is covered by both 1.x and 2.0, but misread their experimental conditions or their results and generate noise. I however, have just managed a breakthrough: I repeated the experiment with the grey rock. I can confirm from personal experience that after a few runs it hurts less to smash into it. This means the hurt factor of an object is finite and consumed by repeated shocks. I also realized that the rock got a little less grey and a little more red as the tries went on. Therefore theory 1 is true, regardless of what the official theory 2 wants us to believe: the greyness of the rock is the hurting factor, which depletes as it is used to provide the hurt, to be replaced by the nominal reddity of the material. I intend to analyze in further experiments on the red brick wall to disprove current established theory that is wrongly defended by those scientist that blindly follow dogma. Initial data already suggest that the part of the wall where I crash gets darker in the last steps before the impact. On explanation could be that brick walls rely on a defense mecanism to get greyer before impact, therefore increasing their hurting potential.
You might want to look up some basic alchemy, this appears to be a mechanic quite similar to how the phlogiston within wood is released into the surroundings when burning.
|
On July 22 2015 19:11 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2015 18:32 Oshuy wrote:On July 22 2015 17:26 Simberto wrote:
The fact of the matter is that most sciences have a least a hundred years of very smart people thinking about them under the hood. Some, like physics, have a few thousand. At this point, the bulk of knowledge is simply so great that the surface is so well tested that to come up with something new and exciting, you basically need to go deeper and already have a lot of education in the field to understand the surface.
Things like newtonian physics or laws of thermodynamics have been around for a while. If there was an obvious and easy way to disprove them with household appliances, there is a pretty high chance that it would have already happened.
This does not mean that you should simply believe in authorities. Luckily with science, you don't have to. You can look up the experiments and explanations that lead to the common believe (Even online at this point). But if you are too lazy or too stupid to understand those, chances are that you did not suddenly come up with something entirely new and genius. Once you have understood the common theories, you can try to disprove them. You can always take the sum of all the observations that have been made and consider them as points in a multi dimensional space of some kind. An accepted theory will match within an acceptable margin with any point it has been measured against and predict values in its domain of application for study/analysis/use. However, it will always remain one out of an infinite number of representation for all those other points. There is theory, perfectly valid for anything we know, with the only difference that if I drop my coffee right now, instead of falling it turns into a unicorn that races through the wall and out in the sky beyhond... And now I have to mop up and buy a new mug. All jokes aside, the reason why one specific theory matching observations emerges is still an interesting one. It is just a matter of understanding nature better and better. Accurate understanding will generalise better than ad-hoc understanding. Let me make a nonsensical example. Observation: It hurts if I run into a rock. Theory 1: It hurts to run into grey things. Theory 2: It hurts to run into hard things. Both describe data so far. Experiment: Run into a red brick wall. Observation: it hurts to run into a red brick wall. Theory 1: conflicts with observations. Corrected model 1.1: It hurts to run into grey things, or things with square patterns. Theory 2: accurately predicted observation, does not need to be corrected. Experiment: Run into a bouncy castle with square patterns. I think you can guess what goes her, but it'll have to involve a theory 1.2. As we continue and do more experiments, it is "easy" to separate the theories that actually describe nature from the theories that just happen to describe the data it was made to fit. So I think that the one theory we are left with that describes all the data is the most likely to actually describe what is going on in reality (if you allow me to take a positivist view here). We cannot know for sure that model 1.1 (and the 1.2 that will be needed...) isn't actually the true model ("true model" here refers to the models that predicts all future observations), so some kind of leap of faith has to be made to say that it is reflecting nature. Many would point to Occam's razor here, but I think what I am trying to say is slightly different, and a bit easier to swallow: A theory that successfully predicts observations is more likely to continue to predict experiments than a theory that has to be adjusted for each new observation. So after our experiments above, we would start leaning towards theory 2 over theory 1.2. Not beacuse theory 2 is simpler (as would be Occam's razors argument), but because it successfully predicted an observation, while theory 1.2 hasn't predicted anything, only described existing observations. Of course, someone may have come up with theory 1.2 already after the first observation (I don't see many paying attention to it at that point, but let's pretend...), and at that point we would be equally leaning towards theory 2 and 1.2. Until we perform more experiments, that eventually will force 1.2 to be modified again, putting out of favour. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that the reason some theories stick around, is that they actually describe some aspect of nature. There, one sentence.
that's very well put, thanks for that =) the internet needs more people capable of thinking like that. Are you a fellow scientist ?
|
History is filled with obviously wrong scientists that turned to have been correct only in hindsight. The goal is not to trust all scientists, the goal is to continue the distrust and hampering of new science so that only the truly infallible results float to the surface. For every galileo there are thousands upon thousands of quacks--those quacks are the reasons for such harsh ridicule of fantastical sciences.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
On windows task manager what does the "disk" thing stands for? I thought it was space on disc but it changes, and it is in MB/s. I ask because it is usually very low but sometimes it goes to 99% or something and it all slows down/fails to open files, and then goes back to normal 7% or so.
|
On July 23 2015 03:55 [Phantom] wrote:
On windows task manager what does the "disk" thing stands for? I thought it was space on disc but it changes, and it is in MB/s. I ask because it is usually very low but sometimes it goes to 99% or something and it all slows down/fails to open files, and then goes back to normal 7% or so.
Disk activity, how much data is being read from or written to, the HDD
|
On July 22 2015 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
History is filled with obviously wrong scientists that turned to have been correct only in hindsight. The goal is not to trust all scientists, the goal is to continue the distrust and hampering of new science so that only the truly infallible results float to the surface. For every galileo there are thousands upon thousands of quacks--those quacks are the reasons for such harsh ridicule of fantastical sciences.
Isn't "filled" a bit exaggerated word here? At least in decently modern science, say last 100 years or so. How many times has it happened since 1900 that someone without any education comes up with something going against current consensus which later turns out to be correct? Personally I can't name any, but I won't pretend to have researched the subject.
|
|
|
On July 22 2015 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
History is filled with obviously wrong scientists that turned to have been correct only in hindsight. The goal is not to trust all scientists, the goal is to continue the distrust and hampering of new science so that only the truly infallible results float to the surface. For every galileo there are thousands upon thousands of quacks--those quacks are the reasons for such harsh ridicule of fantastical sciences.
I care less about who comes up with a scientific hypothesis, and care much more about how much evidence there is for the claim. The scientific community does one hell of a job on trying to pick apart weak ideas, and if an explanation actually becomes so strong that it's considered a scientific theory after reaching consensus, I'd say that's damn good. Obviously, it's important to understand the material on your own (and not just assume things are correct via argument from authority), but how many examples are there where a quack fools the scientific community into elevating an idea with a fantastic reputation, but not actually present any evidence for it? I mean, that's the entire structure of the scientific method...
(I would also note that this is different than merely falsifying previously accepted ideas with new evidence, because those original scientists weren't trying to fool the community, nor were they arbitrarily coming up with bullshit but pretending they had actual evidence... they weren't quacks.)
|
On July 23 2015 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Dr. Atkins obviously
Ah, you misunderstood. I was asking for an uneducated person coming up with something controversial that later turns out to be true. Dr. Atkins an educated person that came up with something that sounded plausible but later turned out to be false. :D
|
On July 23 2015 12:01 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2015 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
History is filled with obviously wrong scientists that turned to have been correct only in hindsight. The goal is not to trust all scientists, the goal is to continue the distrust and hampering of new science so that only the truly infallible results float to the surface. For every galileo there are thousands upon thousands of quacks--those quacks are the reasons for such harsh ridicule of fantastical sciences. Isn't "filled" a bit exaggerated word here? At least in decently modern science, say last 100 years or so. How many times has it happened since 1900 that someone without any education comes up with something going against current consensus which later turns out to be correct? Personally I can't name any, but I won't pretend to have researched the subject.
Off the top off my head?
Gregor Mendel (19th century, but ridiculed and forgotten until 20th century) and Alfred Wegener. In many ways hereditary epigenetics is Lamarckian evolution, and that was still held up as one of those absurd and obviously wrong hypotheses in my high school biology classes. Although it is hard to really argue that any of those three were without education, they were without formal education in the field of their discovery. Then again Albert Einstein also didn't have a formal education in research: he studied to become a teacher.
|
On July 23 2015 12:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2015 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
History is filled with obviously wrong scientists that turned to have been correct only in hindsight. The goal is not to trust all scientists, the goal is to continue the distrust and hampering of new science so that only the truly infallible results float to the surface. For every galileo there are thousands upon thousands of quacks--those quacks are the reasons for such harsh ridicule of fantastical sciences. I care less about who comes up with a scientific hypothesis, and care much more about how much evidence there is for the claim. The scientific community does one hell of a job on trying to pick apart weak ideas, and if an explanation actually becomes so strong that it's considered a scientific theory after reaching consensus, I'd say that's damn good. Obviously, it's important to understand the material on your own (and not just assume things are correct via argument from authority), but how many examples are there where a quack fools the scientific community into elevating an idea with a fantastic reputation, but not actually present any evidence for it? I mean, that's the entire structure of the scientific method... (I would also note that this is different than merely falsifying previously accepted ideas with new evidence, because those original scientists weren't trying to fool the community, nor were they arbitrarily coming up with bullshit but pretending they had actual evidence... they weren't quacks.)
Galen defined medicine for about 1000 years
The greeks for longer than that
In fact, every scientific theory that gets changed or amended as new evidence shows up are literally the products of "quacks" who created false conclusions from evidence--but was the closest we could get at the time.
The Atom was definitely the smallest thing in the universe--until it wasn't. And neutrinos with their whole ignores solid objects magic was definitely just some random guys ideas--until it wasn't.
Heck, a lot of String Theory is not much different than the quacks we see everyday. Solid sounding theories without observed evidence to validate them. As we learn more in the future, these quacks and their ideas will be verified or falsified. But don't pretend that "science believers" have somehow transcended base human traits.
|
On July 23 2015 13:12 Cascade wrote:Ah, you misunderstood. I was asking for an uneducated person coming up with something controversial that later turns out to be true. Dr. Atkins an educated person that came up with something that sounded plausible but later turned out to be false. :D
Atkins was not false in his conclusion that his diet would make you lose weight. Fat shamers were false into thinking losing weight is the same as being healthy.
|
On July 23 2015 13:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 12:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2015 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
History is filled with obviously wrong scientists that turned to have been correct only in hindsight. The goal is not to trust all scientists, the goal is to continue the distrust and hampering of new science so that only the truly infallible results float to the surface. For every galileo there are thousands upon thousands of quacks--those quacks are the reasons for such harsh ridicule of fantastical sciences. I care less about who comes up with a scientific hypothesis, and care much more about how much evidence there is for the claim. The scientific community does one hell of a job on trying to pick apart weak ideas, and if an explanation actually becomes so strong that it's considered a scientific theory after reaching consensus, I'd say that's damn good. Obviously, it's important to understand the material on your own (and not just assume things are correct via argument from authority), but how many examples are there where a quack fools the scientific community into elevating an idea with a fantastic reputation, but not actually present any evidence for it? I mean, that's the entire structure of the scientific method... (I would also note that this is different than merely falsifying previously accepted ideas with new evidence, because those original scientists weren't trying to fool the community, nor were they arbitrarily coming up with bullshit but pretending they had actual evidence... they weren't quacks.) Galen defined medicine for about 1000 years The greeks for longer than that In fact, every scientific theory that gets changed or amended as new evidence shows up are literally the products of "quacks" who created false conclusions from evidence--but was the closest we could get at the time. The Atom was definitely the smallest thing in the universe--until it wasn't. And neutrinos with their whole ignores solid objects magic was definitely just some random guys ideas--until it wasn't. Heck, a lot of String Theory is not much different than the quacks we see everyday. Solid sounding theories without observed evidence to validate them. As we learn more in the future, these quacks and their ideas will be verified or falsified. But don't pretend that "science believers" have somehow transcended base human traits.
My statement made in the parentheses was meant to clarify that I'm not merely talking about accepted ideas that were eventually refuted by new evidence (as that's how all science operates, making the original claim of yours meaningless), but instead ideas that actually tricked the scientific community based off no evidence at all/ quackery. As in, a bullshit hypothesis slipped past the called-for skepticism of the scientific community (where there was actually an ability to falsify that idea at that time) and so the scientific community failed at filtering out obvious quackery.
And I'm not sure what Galen has to do with it; he was a Greek physician and surgeon (and philosopher) whose medical research influenced a ton of scientific disciplines ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen ). That's pretty much the opposite of some random quack making up bullshit that shouldn't have passed scrutiny of the scientific community of that time. His work was not only great at the time (which is the metric we're dealing with), but was also helpful for future advancements of science and medicine.
Maybe I'm reading too much into your original claim/ being too harsh on what you said, but I interpreted it to mean something like this:
Quack/ Fake scientist fabricates an idea, doesn't have any evidence for it (or more importantly, there is already existing evidence that refutes it), and proposes it to the scientific community anyway. Then the community fails at vocally refuting it (even though current research already falsified it), and it passes on to become celebrated as something significant instead of the general consensus saying "lol no scrubs, gtfo".
I interpreted it this way because I'm fairly certain that 99.99% of quacks/ fake scientists get crushed in the scientific community because the real experts know that it's bullshit, which is why you have these jerks circumvent the scientific process and do other shit (like appeal to governments to get their crap posted in public school science textbooks, a la Creationism/ Intelligence Design). The real community of scientists is appropriately skeptical and properly rejects their claims, which makes me hesitant to agree with your claim that we shouldn't be trusting scientists due to the non-scientists who pretend to be scientists. And obviously, there's no way for scientists to know they have "truly infallible results", because scientific claims- by definition- are not irrefutable/ unfalsifiable.
|
On July 23 2015 13:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 13:12 Cascade wrote:On July 23 2015 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Dr. Atkins obviously Ah, you misunderstood. I was asking for an uneducated person coming up with something controversial that later turns out to be true. Dr. Atkins an educated person that came up with something that sounded plausible but later turned out to be false. :D Atkins was not false in his conclusion that his diet would make you lose weight. Fat shamers were false into thinking losing weight is the same as being healthy.
Sure, but what did Atkins say? Did he say it would help you lose weight, or did he say it would help you become more healthy?
Is Atkins a quack, or is he still right on a semantics technicality?
|
What's wrong with Atkins? Wasn't he healthy?
|
On July 23 2015 13:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 13:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 23 2015 12:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2015 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
History is filled with obviously wrong scientists that turned to have been correct only in hindsight. The goal is not to trust all scientists, the goal is to continue the distrust and hampering of new science so that only the truly infallible results float to the surface. For every galileo there are thousands upon thousands of quacks--those quacks are the reasons for such harsh ridicule of fantastical sciences. I care less about who comes up with a scientific hypothesis, and care much more about how much evidence there is for the claim. The scientific community does one hell of a job on trying to pick apart weak ideas, and if an explanation actually becomes so strong that it's considered a scientific theory after reaching consensus, I'd say that's damn good. Obviously, it's important to understand the material on your own (and not just assume things are correct via argument from authority), but how many examples are there where a quack fools the scientific community into elevating an idea with a fantastic reputation, but not actually present any evidence for it? I mean, that's the entire structure of the scientific method... (I would also note that this is different than merely falsifying previously accepted ideas with new evidence, because those original scientists weren't trying to fool the community, nor were they arbitrarily coming up with bullshit but pretending they had actual evidence... they weren't quacks.) Galen defined medicine for about 1000 years The greeks for longer than that In fact, every scientific theory that gets changed or amended as new evidence shows up are literally the products of "quacks" who created false conclusions from evidence--but was the closest we could get at the time. The Atom was definitely the smallest thing in the universe--until it wasn't. And neutrinos with their whole ignores solid objects magic was definitely just some random guys ideas--until it wasn't. Heck, a lot of String Theory is not much different than the quacks we see everyday. Solid sounding theories without observed evidence to validate them. As we learn more in the future, these quacks and their ideas will be verified or falsified. But don't pretend that "science believers" have somehow transcended base human traits. My statement made in the parentheses was meant to clarify that I'm not merely talking about accepted ideas that were eventually refuted by new evidence (as that's how all science operates, making the original claim of yours meaningless), but instead ideas that actually tricked the scientific community based off no evidence at all/ quackery. As in, a bullshit hypothesis slipped past the called-for skepticism of the scientific community (where there was actually an ability to falsify that idea at that time) and so the scientific community failed at filtering out obvious quackery. And I'm not sure what Galen has to do with it; he was a Greek physician and surgeon (and philosopher) whose medical research influenced a ton of scientific disciplines ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen ). That's pretty much the opposite of some random quack making up bullshit that shouldn't have passed scrutiny of the scientific community of that time. His work was not only great at the time (which is the metric we're dealing with), but was also helpful for future advancements of science and medicine. Maybe I'm reading too much into your original claim/ being too harsh on what you said, but I interpreted it to mean something like this: Quack/ Fake scientist fabricates an idea, doesn't have any evidence for it (or more importantly, there is already existing evidence that refutes it), and proposes it to the scientific community anyway. Then the community fails at vocally refuting it (even though current research already falsified it), and it passes on to become celebrated as something significant instead of the general consensus saying "lol no scrubs, gtfo". I interpreted it this way because I'm fairly certain that 99.99% of quacks/ fake scientists get crushed in the scientific community because the real experts know that it's bullshit, which is why you have these jerks circumvent the scientific process and do other shit (like appeal to governments to get their crap posted in public school science textbooks, a la Creationism/ Intelligence Design). The real community of scientists is appropriately skeptical and properly rejects their claims, which makes me hesitant to agree with your claim that we shouldn't be trusting scientists due to the non-scientists who pretend to be scientists. And obviously, there's no way for scientists to know they have "truly infallible results", because scientific claims- by definition- are not irrefutable/ unfalsifiable.
Galen's scientific method was cutting up animals and seeing that they did bleed and have puss, proving that the humors theory of health was true. The idea that being unhealthy was the product of imbalance of humors leading to puking/bleeding as the form of medicine was practiced until well into the modern era (post american civil war)
It's literally quack science that was considered true for the majority of written human history. The only real thing Galen gave us was the practice of writing medical knowledge down and passing it on. A lot of what he wrote down and passed along was wrong--but the process he passed down was pretty good.
Every scientist without observable evidence is a quack scientist because he literally only has an idea that what he believes--but does not have evidence for it. String Theory, a large portion of quantum physics, whole sections of theoretical mathematics, etc... Sure, you and many other scientists find the logic of these ideas relatively sound, but that's not really the point is it? Which is why I call it quack science. The reason quacks exist is because there are enough people out there who find their idea "relatively sound" much like string theory is "relatively sound" to many physicists ang GMO's being evil is "relatively sound" to hippies. But is it observed? Is there evidence for it? Or is it just a logic knot that sounds good--for now.
Sometime in the future, those ideas will be linked to physical evidence and observed phenomena--and once that happens they will stop being quack ideas. Some will be shown to actually be quack ideas such as the humors theory, while some will be shown as good ideas like calculus. But during the interim its important to not forget that its just a bunch of ideas that sound good enough for most of the scientific community to be okay with it.
|
On July 23 2015 14:01 IgnE wrote:
What's wrong with Atkins? Wasn't he healthy?
Atkins was overweight. He lost weight with a low carb diet. He used the diet to help obese people lower their weight. His plan got published in Vogue magazine and was devoured by the public.
That's how a weight loss diet got translated into a healthy diet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
