"Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

by Rod P 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Sad emo

  Rod

  Don't you just hate it when you can't remember the name of the tv programme that really made you think?! All I remember is that it was shown in the late 90's. Maybe someone else here might have watched it and remembered. The findings may be on the internet somewhere.

  The programme makers actually filmed the treatment of a lady who was MRSA+ive, she was really ill, wounds not healing etc. After four days of treatment, which involved drinking the dilute solution (yuk!) she was showing significant improvement and after 2 weeks, she had 'recovered' (Whether this was a complete cure or whether she just became MRSA -ive, I'm not sure)
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hey Rod,

  Sorry if my comments came off as a bit snippy. Lately I have been frustrated by fundamentalist-types who grasp at straws, trying to poo-poo science because it reveals certain things they don't like. I also have a cousin who is into pseudo-science who loves to imagine that his heros are being persecuted by the main-streamers, who haughtily (and baselessly, of course) refuse to consider their "theories."

  And so, because of the area I wish to lead into on other stand-alone threads having to do with the Big Bang theory, and Einstein's theory of Relativity, I would say that these are the kinds of topics that are basically on the relative frontiers of science, where there are still a lot of possibilities beyond what is currently being taught vis-a-vis the textbooks. All the more reason why new and different ideas should not only be tolerated, but even invited into the participation. I would only ask that due consideration be given to viewpoints that may be offered by those who are not considered part of the "establishment" or the academic elite. We might even learn something during the exercise.

  To tell you the truth, I would be a bit relieved (and in any case extremely interested) if there was a better theory than General Relativity, because it makes predictions that are very hard for me to understand. It's a tall order, however, since GR has been so thoroughly useful so far. And even the weirder aspects of it like time dilation have been proven time and time again.

  It is possible for me to imagine, however, that the concept of planets sitting atop a mesh of space-time, producing gravity by warping it, is really nothing more than a useful metaphor, and that there might be an even more useful one. I guess that's the challenge for any would-be successor: it needs to work even better than GR. So I certainly look forward to hearing what you have. :-)

  SNG
• 

  Rod P

  Danny,

  On the other hand, scientist need to use older theories to build something new.

  This is true, for the most part. However, it may also be true that there have been instances where an over-dependence of "older theories" may actually have had the effect of encapsulating the thinking of the scientist(s). In other words, perhaps this can become a kind of straight-jacket where the scientist is so busy developing his/her theory within the framework of conventional wisdom that he/she loses sight of another useful technique known as "thinking outside the box".

  In the long run, break-throughs will still occur. But at the same time, being "stuck" with the "old ways of thinking" may have necessitated research down a number of false trails leading only to dead ends. New and innovative thinking might have been precisely the remedy to circumvent this, and saved a lot of time and expense.

  This is one of the arguments I would have for taking the position that we need to give these so-called "fringe scientists" a chance to be heard, and to give their theories at least a fair consideration. They may serve as very good examples of "thinking outside the box" that may lead on to scientific breakthroughs. But they really do need support in order to move forward.

  At the same time, I fully recognize that there are some real "kooks" out there. It is important to weed those ones out, in order to safeguard valuable time and resources. This is where I would hope that approvals for many competing projects would not be done unilaterally by single individuals in positions of influence, who may have built-in predispositions for or against. Many minds giving due consideration to a particular question or project should level the playing field, and work against the idiosyncrasies of one indidual. I am confident that this does occur in most instances.

  By way example, that there are those in Cancer research who have made some "unconventional" discoveries, worthy at the very least, of some research grants or other funding to enable them to move forward with some serious research and testing. Some areas of research do have legitimate merit. Yet it may have had the door slammed in its face in terms of support. Scientists who insist on travelling down this road may also find themselves on the outside looking in, especially if they behave with anything resembling a missionary zeal. Enthusiasm can often be misinterpreted. This game is not for the faint of heart.

  Again, onward and upward. (Or as my marketing friend used to say "Inward and downward!")

  Rod P.
• 

  DannyBloem

  1) The Big Bang Theory of the Universe

  2) Einstein's General and Special Theory of Relativity. This will include the question of the finite limit of the speed of light, the question of the Ether (Aether) and the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

  During the course of these two discussions, I would also like to get into a discussion as to the possible implications for these.

  I will be posting these on new and separate threads shortly, owing to their length. I will deal with the Big Bang theory firstly.

  I am really looking forward, can maybe bring in a point or two.

  This ;is true, for the most part. However, it may also be true that there ;have been instances where an over-dependence of "older theories" may actually have had the effect of encapsulating the thinking of the scientist(s). In other words, perhaps this can become a kind of straight-jacket where the scientist is so busy developing his/her theory within the framework of conventional wisdom that he/she loses sight of another useful technique known as "thinking outside the box".

  I think you never can think completely out of the box. The most dangerous of them are not the acceped theories but the wishes of the scientist. Especially if they are based on religious conviction. Even Einstein the greatest 'out of the box' thinker IMO, was influenced: "God does not play dice he said". Well it turned out God probably did.
  Completely out of the box thinking is just not possible. There are certain fact you are thought as logic or conventional. Like Einsteins though: the speed of light is does not depend on the speed of the observer.

  This is one of the arguments I would have for taking the position that we need to give these so-called "fringe scientists" a chance to be heard, and to give their theories at least a fair consideration. They may serve as very good examples of "thinking outside the box" that may lead on to scientific breakthroughs. But they really do need support in order to move forward.

  I agree in a bit. But there are not many breakthrough coming from them. Inside the scientific comunity there are a lot of different opinions also. For example Penrose one of the leading scientist, has many different theories then hawking.
  In most cases all scientists are very eager to prove a convention theory wrong.

  It also depends very much the field of science. And if people question things thay should try to come up with a better one.

  Danny
• 

  Sad emo

  Possible success! I think this might have been what those Russian scientists and doctors were experimenting with.

  http://www.phageinternational.com/
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  kid-A,

  I guess I would encourage anybody who feels "blinded by science" to think about that statement next time they turn on their lights, turn on their stoves, enjoy their

  air conditioning, take pharmaceuticals and/or vaccines for their diseases, hop on an airplane, post a message on the internet, take their car or drive a bus, go through life-saving surgery, are cured themselves or have their children cured from a horrible disease

  well put. science has done so much for humanity. hell, it is even self correcting. and yet, critics want to focus on the tiny fraction of negative press it gets. i would be concerned, very concerned, if science had absolutely no short-comings at all. if science is self-correcting, and cause & effect is a universal truism, then we will eventually understand it.

  talesin,

  i have seen people go out of their way to criticize a police service just because of what they see on TV, or hear through the grapevine. a police service can be 90% good, 5% so-so, and 5% bad, and that last 5% is what everybody wants to concentrate on, whilst enjoying all the benefits of a police service in an urban centre. perhaps this is why someone working within the police service (or a wannabe) will defend the police service from criticism. even the wannabe (the commissioners wife? the volunteer?) is in a position to do some good for the sake of the service. no one is saying science , or the police service is faultless. but the motive behind nit-picking the 5%, is what again? i'm not saying this is what Rod is doing. after reading his successive replies, it is now obvious that his desire is more truth, than criticism. and this should be applauded. and i do so. sadly though, if no one is going to patrol possible misrepresentations of science, then science is paid a dis-service by those who are threatened by it.

  and i think it is clear to Rod, that my response to his essay, was to clarify that "Bad Science" is more often "Pseudo-Science" than it is heavy handed professors squashing free-thinking geniuses who are trying to work within the framework. not saying it doesn't happen, but it is the small fraction, and needs to be identified as such clearly.

  Rod,

  That was not my intent. I was not suggesting the problem was rampant.

  But in the long run, science will win out, precisely because knowledge and discovery has it's own way of becoming compelling and convincing, or as you say "manifestly real". True knowledge is simply superior to ignorance, superstition, prejudice, wishful thinking and untested notions (eg. Urban Legends).

  Perhaps I need to update my thinking in terms of how science operates today, as opposed to say 20 years ago when I was in the thick of things.

  this is honest of you Rod. i have read your posts. i don't think you need to be that hard on yourself. sure science and scientific method has been optimized over the last 20 years, but the basic premise is still there. you obviously have a good knowledge of science, and an honest desire to see the closest approximation of truth win out. and in this way, i really appreciate what you are doing.

  SNG,

  science is a good system because it is manifestly real.

  brilliant descriptor. i think humans got to the point where it became very obvious that they needed a better system, that did not involve faith, to understand nature. science is obviously the offspring of those thoughts, and should be given the respect it deserves, warts and all. the inconsistencies and problems will be ironed out, and the others that will always be there, will be checked by optimized stop gaps.

  frog,

  , gosh, thanks.

  danny,

  It also depends very much the field of science. And if people question things thay should try to come up with a better one.

  that's exactly it, isn't it? critics of science are often not in a position to do anything about the problems, and so critique is all they can do. but the few that are in a position, should really be developing their own hypotheses within the framework already in existence.
• 

  Rod P

  
  
  Talesin,
  Thank you for the analogy. That does illustrate well what I am trying to say or infer.
  
  

  Sad Emo,

  Thank you for the very interesting article. I do have a lot of concerns about the extent that antibiotics may becoming ineffective against the treatment of disease. All we need is some superbug to hit the human race and we have nothing to counter with. I think it's a race against time.

  I need to learn more about your topic to even comment on it one way or the other.

  Danny,

  First of all I am scratching my head. Where did "&npsb" come from? It seems to be popping up all over the place. Weird! Is it some kind of acronym? I am pretty sure I did not type this, and I can't see where I may have put my fingers on the keyboard in a wrong position to produce such meaningless "character litter".

  With regards to "thinking outside the box", I do not imply leapfrogging into looneytune science for the sake of being different. It's more like, a good dancer has to first know all the rules of dancing and be able to perform the steps and techniques with a high degree of perfection or precision before he/she starts to even think about breaking those rules in order to come up with something new or innovative. And further, science does not work in a vacuum (hmmm! yes, I see the pun here. So maybe I'm wrong on that one! LOL)

  And as for your contributing a point or two in the discussion, feel free to jump right in. The more the merrier. I may have to even step aside and let you guys take over the thread if any of you come up with anything more compelling than all the rest. I certainly don't have all the answers, and do have lots of questions.

  Let the games begin. Just let's all try to have a gentlemen's duel, and not try to rip the hides off one another in the process. Let's just park our "attitudes" at the front entrance of the threads and get on with the discussions at hand, OK?

  I want to see more of and and and , and even a little of or or . That would be What I dislike is when a thread turns into and and and which leads to . That would be and then we might just as well go off and.

  In the meantime, while I'm getting Big Bang ready, here's a little teaser for you all on the speed of light:

  Stand at Point A with two flashlights. Shine the flashlights at a Point B target 100 feet away. I think we would all agree that the light from each of those two flashlights is travelling to the target at the speed of light i.e. 186,000 miles per second.

  Point A ----------Flashlights 1 & 2---------->Point B

  Now, keep Flashlight #1 at Point A shining on Point B Target.

  Then carry Flashlight #2 to Target Point B. Then shine Flashlight #2 in a parallel direction as Flashlight #1, but to a third Point C, 100 feet away from Point B.

  Point A ---------Flashlight 1----------->Point B--------Flashlight 2-------->Point C

  Again, I think we can all agree that the light from Flashlight 1 travelling from Point A to Point B will reach the Point B target in precisely the same amount of time as the light from Flashlight 2 travelling from Point B to Point C (100 feet distance at 186,000 m.p.s.). Each beam of light is travelling in the same direction in and of itself at that identical speed.

  Now, continue to keep Flashlight #1 at Point A shining on Point B Target.

  Then, standing at Point B with Flashlight 2 in your hand, I want you to turn the beam backwards 180 degrees, so that the beam from Flashlight 2 is aimed directly at Point A. We now have two beams of light aimed directly at each other.

  The question I have for you is: What is the speed of the two beams of light travelling directly towards each other, relative to each other?

  Cheers!

  Rod P.
  edited to get last diagram to fit on one line instead of two edited again to get last diagram to fit on one line.
  edited again to eliminate needless spaces appearing out of nowhere
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Just let's ;all try to have a gentlemen's duel

  will do. (BTW, the " ;" is a problem with the web server. doesn't have anything to do with us. [IIS-grumble grumble])

  The question I have for you is: What is the speed of the two beams of light travelling directly towards each other, relative to each other?

  - i've got it captain. back in a bit.

  TS
• 

  Euphemism

  Rod... have you read Thomas Kuhn's The Nature of Scientific Revolutions? It's an excellent (albeit very densely written) book, and is right on point to your initial post.

  Kuhn points out that all scientists (at least the practitioners of mature sciences) work within a paradigm. This paradigm can easily be dismissed as "bias", "tunnel vision", etc. But the use of a paradigm is necesssary for science to advance. Without a paradigm, it's difficult to even define useful questions or experiments, let alone interpret the results. Without a paradigm, scientists spend a lot of time arguing over basic methodologies and premises, instead of gaining new knowledge.

  So unless a paradigm is falling apart, scientists tend to dismiss any work outside the paradigm, and rightly so. It's as if a construction crew is busy working on a building, and when they are halfway through, one worker says: "Let's just scrap this building and start a new one!" It's a major waste of effort.

  Progress in science--even new paradigms--comes from people who are wrestling with the existing problems and paradigms of their field, not from lone "geniuses" who ignore the wisdom of the entire scientific community.

  Granted, I'm sure there are some very bright and talented scientists who lose out on the game of grants and financial support. There's a large measure of luck--and undoubtedly political savvy--involved. But when I meet some lone outlier who believes that they're right and the entire scientific community is wrong, my first thought is not that they have been "criticized, ridiculed, branded, even expunged from their little academic club" to maintain the status quo. I find it far more likely that they're simply wrong.
• 

  Rod P

  Euphemism,

  Very good comments. Thanks for sharing.

  No I have not read Kuhn's "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions". I will definitely have to get into that one.

  The idea that "the use of a paradigm is necessary for science to advance" does appear reasonable to me. It seems to me that "scientific method" is the macro-paradigm for all scientists, is it not? This is the framework around which useful questions and experiments are formulated and ultimately interpreted. Within each branch of science I am sure are a number of characteristic micro-paradigms that may be unique for that particular field. My impression is that this is also included in what you are alluding to.

  I have a very interesting account from the 1980's within the fields of paleontology and archaeology having to do with the genesis of Early-American or Paleo-Indians (as archaeologists call them). Conventionally, it has always been taught that (1) several million years ago, Homo habilis, the first clear ancestor on man's lineage, appeared in Africa; (2) approximately one million years ago, Homo erectus, a more advanced form, appeared in Asia, Africa, and Europe; (3) about 180,000 years ago, "near men" called Neanderthals dominated Europe; and finally, (4) fully modern man, our direct ancestors, apeared in Europe 35,000 years ago, spreading into Africa and Asia and eventually reaching North America 12,000 years ago. Since, according to this scenario, there were no fully modern men anywhere in the world 70,000 years ago, these new American discoveries, mostly from North America, point to the astonishing thesis that men like ourselves, subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, made their world debut in the Americas, instead of in Europe. From southern California the first fully modern men may have ventured forth, bearing cultural and technological gifts to the rest of the world. In other words, this amounts to a reverse migration from America to Europe, etc.

  The author, Dr. Jeffrey Goodman, Ph.D., goes on to build a very good case for this, utilizing all kinds of physical evidences and artifacts that have been properly dated with generally accepted dating techniques and methodologies. The evidence shows that modern man was in the Americas at dates much, much older than the traditional 12,000-year-old date associated with the Bering Bridge entry model. Now it is pushing back to 100,000 and 150,000 year time frames. This has serious implications for the whole established body of opinion heretofore.

  Since that time, much progress has been made. Now there are models showing migrations in both directions. The whole paradigm has been shifted, even turned on its head. It takes individuals like Dr. Goodman to accomplish such feats.

  This is the kind of thing I am referring to with respect to being outside the paradigm of conventional wisdom.

  I am not persuaded that scientists on the outside are far more likely to be wrong. It may be possible that they are wrong. It may also be possible that they are not wrong. That remains to be seen.

  That is one of the reasons I am interested in exploring a couple of interesting topics on a couple of upcoming threads (Big Bang and Relativity), where we can examine some alternatives on this JWD thinktank.

  Rod P.