- Site Admin
- Posts: 840
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
- Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
“Will Mr. Isaac Newton Please Yield the Floor to Mr. Isaac Asimov?” Sometimes art imitates life. Sometimes life imitates art. In this case, a little science fiction is written as though it is a lot of science fact. But will discerning scientists stand for it? [More...]
- Posts: 1372
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am
This habit, or tendency, is a curiosity to me. Not in a good way I should say. This supposed "seeding' of the Earth by some rogue element could have been hypothesized for planetary encounter, asteroid, cometary impact and/or 'dusting' and so on. Daydreaming of ways and manners for which life could have emerged on Earth, barring something original to Earth as the cause, will undoubtedly foster such ideas.Scientists seem fixated upon determining whether or not we are alone in the universe and conjecturing upon the myriad imaginative ways in which it may have evolved here on Earth and elsewhere.
LOL!!! Yeah, I loved that one!!It all seems well and good as a back-of-the-envelope thought experiment.
I do consider that as having summed up the "black hole" hypothesis. An over extrapolation of the theory of gravitation that is now rife with paradoxes as supporters of the theory try to back out of it owing to observation that contradict it.This is a rather flimsy justification for the thought experiment. One could just as easily say “nothing rules out finding leprechauns on Mars.” Should we, in honor of St. Patty’s Day, engage in idle daydreams about how leprechauns might have evolved on Mars and then spend copious time and resources trying to figure out the exact process by which they hypothetically could have come to be?
We have this today!! That "confirmation bias" is what results so many 'surprises'. Alfven encountered it as did Langmuir and Birkeland!!That scientists seem comfortable with accepting such flights of fancy as worthy of serious consideration is worrisome. Should not theory proceed from observation, rather than the other way around? If we frame hypotheses and then go looking for confirmatory data, will science become overly susceptible to "confirmation bias" (wherein one interprets data as being in support of one’s preconceived ideas rather than allowing the data to speak for itself, even if it is disconfirmatory)?
Added to that would be the ad hominem bias towards other hypotheses that may upset the apple cart of 'security' and comfort of what is considered to be 'known'. It still amazes me that one will often here the mention of something that may infer the potential for "new physics". I never take that seriously were it even the case because 'They' would reject that which brought the potentiality of it. Immediately!!It seems that, of late, science has reverted to the habit of "framing hypotheses." In other words, hypotheses and thought experiments are being treated as though they are not in fact unproven.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest