Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[Solar]

Hi JL, StevenO, Solar and Webolife,
I'll stick with the Tao Te Ching, it's much simpler.

Five

...

The realm of heaven and earth is like a bellows,
both empty and full.
Moving, it brings forth, endlessly.

More words, less understanding.
Hold fast to the core.

My emphasis.

That just deserved repeating. BRAVO.

[altonhare]

A lot of what's wrong with modern science is exposed in this recent study:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 425036.ece

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

Now this cracks me up:

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.

It's everybody elses fault! Now where's my grant money!



sad, sad, sad. But I think most of us here knew this already. It is, however, pretty good ammunition when debating the validity of scientific research/peer review, on other forums.

Thanks for that article, not that most realistic people would be too surprised.

Otoh, I wonder how many studies of misconduct and invention of data are made up by those who would benefit by sowing distrust in "mainstream science". Haha.

[altonhare]

Proposition (2) conflicts with two of your other statements:
(a) "An object exists independently of the ability to see it", and
(b) "Location is the set of distances that separate one object from one or more others".

I see no contradiction or conflict. An object that exists has shape and location whether I can see it or not.

Also, location is just the set of distances of one object that exists from every other object that exists.

So, the proposition is then "The universe exists out of objects with shape and location, some of which have a visible presence". But, what objective criterion does exist to determine the shape and location of the invisible objects?

It is not a "proposition". We are defining the words universe, object, and exist so that we can use these consistently and clearly. The word "universe" is a shorthand way of listing all objects that exist.

If it has shape and location, it exists by definition regardless of anyone's opinion. This is the most objective criterion I can think of.

A few questions that pop up are:
- What is the "location" of an invisible object that exists?

The set of distances from it to every other object that exists.

- Does an individual visible shape have no "location", i.e. it does not "exist"?

This keyboard has location, it's right here. It definitely exists.

I don't understand your confusion. You seem very hung up on visible vs. invisible when it is completely irrelevant.

I'm just completely puzzled how in this world one would determine the shape and location of the invisible objects, especially if you don't acknowledge the existence of space, time or forces described by fields.

I repeat, if it has shape and location, it exists by definition. Where do you see anything about visibility in this definition? However, if it has shape there is no reason we cannot visualize what it might look like.

So an electron or 'a' quark may be too small for anyone to SEE (it's invisible), but if it's an object then there is no excuse for us not to imagine what it looks like.

A visualisation is not a proof of what the shape and location of an object is. There is no law that nature is subjected to human imagination.

Where do you hear anything about proof? A visualization is so you know WHAT I am talking about. This means that before I talk about the electron/quark/light/string moving, I first show you it. We cannot even talk about the motion of "it" if we don't even know what "it" is.

There is no reason to think that humans are excluded from understanding anything. We are the highest intelligence known.

- Define "distance"
- Define "separation"

The inherent static relationship between two objects. Qualitatively the concepts "distance" and "separate" mean that we are referring to two objects and not one.

So, distance and seperation are the same? But WHAT separates two objects? An invisible object?

By asking WHAT separates them, you are asserting at the outset that an object must separate them (the word what refers to objects). The question implies the answer.

Two objects are separate because if they were not they'd be one object. Two objects are separate by definition. Two forms are not one form.

Visualized fields have real nice three dimensional shapes...

Which is contradicted in the next breath when fields are said to "exist over all space" i.e. have "infinite extent" i.e. no boundary or border.

Nevertheless, you may use this word "field" however you want. Show me the field of your theory? How does it physically justify attraction and repulsion?

I do not have to show it, it is an invisible object with shape and location. E.g. the earth's magnetic field originates from it's core and is kind'a shaped like an apple.

If it has shape there is no excuse not to show what it looks like. You are proposing that the earth is embedded in an invisible apple-shaped object called a "magnetic field".

Using this hypothesis, how do you explain attraction and repulsion?

You are confusing particles with your definition of "objects". A particle is only discrete in terms of energy content. An exchange of a discrete amount of energy can be described by a "virtual particle", very similar to your "invisible objects". If the total energy content of a system goes down when the particles move closer together you get attraction, otherwise repulsion. I do not see the problem.

What is this energy "thing" that you are exchanging which a particle apparently possesses? If particles are not little pebbles, what do they look like? What does this energy thing that the particle carries on its back?

Why do you think nature should adhere to human concepts like "carrying something on its back"? Energy is the ability to do work, the ability to move something, e.g. one of your objects. But I assume you have not "defined" it yet, so it is not part of your vocabulary. Still a long way to go then...

I am not insisting anything upon Nature. I am insisting you communicate clearly and consistently, unlike theists that allow God to be both an object and a concept, so 'it' can do anything in their theory. Either energy can be an object (photon ball?) or a concept (motion), but not both!

If energy is the concept motion, then "particles carry energy" just means that particles move. If energy is an object, you're saying that particles carry this thing around with them somehow. If you disagree please explain to me the other ways something (an object) can be carried.

Could you transfer some of your height to me, or some of your motivation please? Of course not, these are concepts.

Sure, just stand on my back. My motivation I'm already transferring, but you're just so hardheaded. And while you are at it, could you throw me a rope to one of your "invisible shapes with location"

Haha, I stand on your back. I did not become taller. Of course you're smart enough to know this already and are just joking.

You're transferring motivation? Could you show me how you're doing this so that I can confirm for myself?

What you're saying is that you take some measurements and you get X result when A and A' move together and Y result when A and B move together. One result you refer to as "energy increases" and the other as "energy decreases". This is accounting, not a physical mechanism/theory.

That's what you do when your theorizing leads to actual results

Identifying patterns, mathematically or otherwise, is great insofar as it leads you to your theory. It's also great insofar as it makes some device work well.

A wave has shape and location, so it is a real nice object too And rope theorists always beg the question of who is pulling the ropes

Really? What does the wave of your theory look like?

What? You've never seen a wave? And you pretend to do physics? Try throwing a rock in the lake and then come back.

I did. I saw humps of water moving outwards. If this is your model, tell me how you explain light and magnetism with this hypothesis.

How do you use 'it' to explain how light propagates rectilinear from source to target but also consists of anti parallel components moving in a helical/torsional pattern?

The mainstream theory is that the photon is the quantum of the EM field, so one can only interact with the EM field through photons. My theory is different and would take too much time to explain here. You can find it in the "Reciprocal System" thread.

What's the hypothesis, i.e. what object(s) are there?

Everybody and everything is pulling on everybody and everything else. Your point is moot. Thread theory has not posed an action (such as waving) divorced from an object as wave theorists generally do. In TT the rope is the entity doing the moving.

Why do you think the physical universe is restricted to "objects" and to even more restrictive "pulling objects"? How do I see a rope move?

There are only objects out there Steven. Nobody can visualize or observe that which lacks shape, because without shape there is nothing.

However push is fine, two atoms push each other when they collide. They always pull on each other.

What theory? He confessed he had no idea how objects attracted each other nor why inertia and gravitation appeared to be quantitatively equivalent. He just mathematically summed up a great many observations in a concise framework. He made the bookkeeping and accounting much more tractable. He had no theory, he didn't even have a hypothesis. Well, he did propose the corpuscle for light, but he had no such hyp for gravity.

At least Newton was honest that he had no theory and did not want to pose something if he had no clue. You're just hypothesing an invisible entity that cannot be objectively detected. What's the difference?

That's exactly what we do in science, we hypothesize. Everyone agrees that the earth goes around the sun.

Are you asking me what the difference is between postulating an explanation and not postulating an explanation? I know you're smart enough to answer that one.

But, tell me, how is "acceleration" defined in "objectively existing something" theory?

Acceleration isn't the problem, the definition of the terms that define acceleration are the problem (position and time). The definition of acceleration is the same when the proper definitions of time, distance, location, and distance-traveled are in place.

Long way to go then. But maybe you could hypothetize something. Question is: how to determine from your definitions of objects, locations, etc. that an object is accelerating?

What's the problem? An object is accelerating if its motion is nonuniform wrt a pre-established standard.

Science isn't about sending people to the moon. Science is just about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Getting mathematical models that match up well helps us build devices, but don't say anything about the underlying physical mechanisms. Posing physical mechanisms can help us to understand.

I have seen a gazillion theories that claim to explain everything. How would that "help us to understand" instead of "distract us into confusion"? What objective criterion exists that distinguishes the good ones from the bad ones?

Firstly, we distinguish those theories that are rational as scientific, and discard all the rest. Any theory that poses the unimaginable, inconceivable, demands contradiction, etc. is right out. Religions are a great example, they all propose God, then immediately insist that "he" (of course it's a man) is inconceivable. They then propose contradictory and supernatural mechanisms and explanations such as creation ex nihlo. Consistency and conceivability are objective criteria. We cannot scientifically evaluate that which contradicts itself and we cannot scientifically evaluate a "theory" that is incomprehensible.

If the theory is True, in that it matches exactly with reality, then one's belief in that theory is Right. Otherwise one's belief is Wrong.

Please define "rational", "unimaginable", "inconceivable", "creation ex nihilo", "incomprehensible", "True", "Right", "Wrong" and "exactly with reality"(is that within 1% or 0.0000001%?).

Since current mainstream theories match with reality they must be Right beliefs then.

Exactly with reality means it matches 100% (within +/- 0%).

Rational: visualizable
unimaginable: unvisualizable
inconceivable: synonym for unimaginable
creation ex nihilo: something "coming from nothing"
incomprehensible: syn for inconceivable
True: You really have trouble with this one? It means correct. It means what I am stating or demonstrating is exactly what happened
Wrong: What I am stating or demonstrating is not exactly what happened

[webolife]

Ease up Alton, you and I may both be observing exactly what happened, and matching it to completely different explanations to the best of our ability. The level of our [perception of our] understanding will follow from how strongly we hold to an underlying paradigm or set of assumptions. Whether we can convince someone else may be a matter of wordsmithing. How similar our premises are may determine whether our conclusions are in any way compatible.

[StevenO]

So, the proposition is then "The universe exists out of objects with shape and location, some of which have a visible presence". But, what objective criterion does exist to determine the shape and location of the invisible objects?

It is not a "proposition". We are defining the words universe, object, and exist so that we can use these consistently and clearly. The word "universe" is a shorthand way of listing all objects that exist.

If it has shape and location, it exists by definition regardless of anyone's opinion. This is the most objective criterion I can think of.

OK then, universe=all "objects" that "exist". But you have'nt answered my question, except by saying that if you "define" something to have "shape and location" it "exists", regardless of what anybody else thinks. Let me ask it differently: can you give me a definition of how to determine "shape and location", so that I can determine the existence of objects for you?

So, distance and seperation are the same? But WHAT separates two objects? An invisible object?

By asking WHAT separates them, you are asserting at the outset that an object must separate them (the word what refers to objects). The question implies the answer.

Two objects are separate because if they were not they'd be one object. Two objects are separate by definition. Two forms are not one form.

So, if two pixels on my screen have the same color, they are the same "object' and if one is white and the other green they are two separate "objects"? What about a hole in a wall? Since it has "shape" and "location" it is an "object" too?

I do not have to show it, it is an invisible object with shape and location. E.g. the earth's magnetic field originates from it's core and is kind'a shaped like an apple.

If it has shape there is no excuse not to show what it looks like. You are proposing that the earth is embedded in an invisible apple-shaped object called a "magnetic field".

Using this hypothesis, how do you explain attraction and repulsion?

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to your "object" theories. Magnetic fields are explained in physics textbooks, which I'm sure you've read. The way I personally would explain attraction and repulsion is if the motion of a physical object makes another physical object move towards it, they "attract", if it makes another object move from it, they "repel".

Why do you think nature should adhere to human concepts like "carrying something on its back"? Energy is the ability to do work, the ability to move something, e.g. one of your objects. But I assume you have not "defined" it yet, so it is not part of your vocabulary. Still a long way to go then...

I am not insisting anything upon Nature. I am insisting you communicate clearly and consistently, unlike theists that allow God to be both an object and a concept, so 'it' can do anything in their theory. Either energy can be an object (photon ball?) or a concept (motion), but not both!

If energy is the concept motion, then "particles carry energy" just means that particles move. If energy is an object, you're saying that particles carry this thing around with them somehow. If you disagree please explain to me the other ways something (an object) can be carried.

The distinction between object and concept is philosophy of language. In physics energy is a measurable property, something like "shape" but then with numbers

Could you transfer some of your height to me, or some of your motivation please? Of course not, these are concepts.

Sure, just stand on my back. My motivation I'm already transferring, but you're just so hardheaded. And while you are at it, could you throw me a rope to one of your "invisible shapes with location"

Haha, I stand on your back. I did not become taller. Of course you're smart enough to know this already and are just joking.

You're transferring motivation? Could you show me how you're doing this so that I can confirm for myself?

I did... I'm motivating you to write long posts. But again you are confusing concepts with properties. That's because the only properties you want to recognize are "shape" and "location".

What? You've never seen a wave? And you pretend to do physics? Try throwing a rock in the lake and then come back.

I did. I saw humps of water moving outwards. If this is your model, tell me how you explain light and magnetism with this hypothesis.

Once you also see the regularity you might appreciate the concept For the rest I would refer you to textbooks again.

How do you use 'it' to explain how light propagates rectilinear from source to target but also consists of anti parallel components moving in a helical/torsional pattern?

The mainstream theory is that the photon is the quantum of the EM field, so one can only interact with the EM field through photons. My theory is different and would take too much time to explain here. You can find it in the "Reciprocal System" thread.

What's the hypothesis, i.e. what object(s) are there?

The universe consists only of discrete units of motion and a photon is a 'rotating' unit of motion, Since what we observe are projections of what happens one observer will notice a wave while another will detect a discrete particle.

Everybody and everything is pulling on everybody and everything else. Your point is moot. Thread theory has not posed an action (such as waving) divorced from an object as wave theorists generally do. In TT the rope is the entity doing the moving.

Why do you think the physical universe is restricted to "objects" and to even more restrictive "pulling objects"? How do I see a rope move?

There are only objects out there Steven. Nobody can visualize or observe that which lacks shape, because without shape there is nothing.

However push is fine, two atoms push each other when they collide. They always pull on each other.

If you are so sure there is only "shapes", then please describe the known physics properties as aspects of "shape". What's the shape of temperature? Or specific weight? Or electric charge? A simple visualisation is OK.

What theory? He confessed he had no idea how objects attracted each other nor why inertia and gravitation appeared to be quantitatively equivalent. He just mathematically summed up a great many observations in a concise framework. He made the bookkeeping and accounting much more tractable. He had no theory, he didn't even have a hypothesis. Well, he did propose the corpuscle for light, but he had no such hyp for gravity.

At least Newton was honest that he had no theory and did not want to pose something if he had no clue. You're just hypothesing an invisible entity that cannot be objectively detected. What's the difference?

That's exactly what we do in science, we hypothesize. Everyone agrees that the earth goes around the sun.

Are you asking me what the difference is between postulating an explanation and not postulating an explanation? I know you're smart enough to answer that one.

No, my question was "what is the difference between mathematics without explanation that matches observation and an explanation without any mathematics nor observations"?

But, tell me, how is "acceleration" defined in "objectively existing something" theory?

Acceleration isn't the problem, the definition of the terms that define acceleration are the problem (position and time). The definition of acceleration is the same when the proper definitions of time, distance, location, and distance-traveled are in place.

Long way to go then. But maybe you could hypothetize something. Question is: how to determine from your definitions of objects, locations, etc. that an object is accelerating?

What's the problem? An object is accelerating if its motion is nonuniform wrt a pre-established standard.

How to determine it is "nonuniform"? More than one location? What is this pre-established standard?

[longcircuit]

Moderator: feel free to move this to a more appropriate thread if you think it belongs there.
All of this is worth reading, but here are the money quotes:

...It’s rare for a scientist—even a string theorist, beholden neither to instruments nor to data—to submit 7 articles in an entire year, let alone one month....[emphasis added]

...Schön, like his forging forebears, worked with a particular idea of what real or legitimate knowledge claims should look like. He sought to make his fakes fit in rather than stand out, massaging his data to better match established predictions....

...When colleagues occasionally expressed curiosity about how he prepared his samples or undertook his measurements, Schön could throw up his hands and explain that the apparatus was several thousand miles away....[cf. astronomers who claim near-certainty about what's occurring, say, several million light-years away]

longcircuit

[altonhare]

So, the proposition is then "The universe exists out of objects with shape and location, some of which have a visible presence". But, what objective criterion does exist to determine the shape and location of the invisible objects?

It is not a "proposition". We are defining the words universe, object, and exist so that we can use these consistently and clearly. The word "universe" is a shorthand way of listing all objects that exist.

If it has shape and location, it exists by definition regardless of anyone's opinion. This is the most objective criterion I can think of.

OK then, universe=all "objects" that "exist". But you have'nt answered my question, except by saying that if you "define" something to have "shape and location" it "exists", regardless of what anybody else thinks. Let me ask it differently: can you give me a definition of how to determine "shape and location", so that I can determine the existence of objects for you?

How to determine if X has shape:

X

See? It has shape. Or



See? It does not.

It also has location, it's right there. Otoh, I'm imagining something that looks like this:

O

This symbol, itself, has shape and location. But the one I am imagining does not have location, only shape.

So, distance and seperation are the same? But WHAT separates two objects? An invisible object?

By asking WHAT separates them, you are asserting at the outset that an object must separate them (the word what refers to objects). The question implies the answer.

Two objects are separate because if they were not they'd be one object. Two objects are separate by definition. Two forms are not one form.

So, if two pixels on my screen have the same color, they are the same "object' and if one is white and the other green they are two separate "objects"? What about a hole in a wall? Since it has "shape" and "location" it is an "object" too?

Since you said you have TWO somethings, then no, you do not have ONE something.

'A' hole is not an object because it does not have shape all on its own. 'It' only has shape because of the wall. You cannot present a single, standalone object called "hole". You can, at best, present a block of hollowed out wood.

I do not have to show it, it is an invisible object with shape and location. E.g. the earth's magnetic field originates from it's core and is kind'a shaped like an apple.

If it has shape there is no excuse not to show what it looks like. You are proposing that the earth is embedded in an invisible apple-shaped object called a "magnetic field".

Using this hypothesis, how do you explain attraction and repulsion?

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to your "object" theories. Magnetic fields are explained in physics textbooks, which I'm sure you've read. The way I personally would explain attraction and repulsion is if the motion of a physical object makes another physical object move towards it, they "attract", if it makes another object move from it, they "repel".

You're saying THAT two particular objects, near each other, moved toward each other. You are summarizing this description of what you saw happen with the word "attract". You're also saying THAT two other objects, near each other, moved away from each other. You summarize this description of what you saw happen with the word "repel". It is no better in physics textbooks. We have catalogued which objects move near each other when close and which move away from each other, and we have catalogued how much. Faraday had no idea how two things could "attract" or "repel" when he could not physically see something coming in contact between them. He just waved his hands and called the region around something 'a' field. This was a convenient shorthand to refer to the concept that, when two such objects are proximal, they will tend to move toward or away. Again, Farday had no idea why, he had no idea what the invisible mediator was. And nothing has changed since then, except scientific integrity.

Why do you think nature should adhere to human concepts like "carrying something on its back"? Energy is the ability to do work, the ability to move something, e.g. one of your objects. But I assume you have not "defined" it yet, so it is not part of your vocabulary. Still a long way to go then...

I am not insisting anything upon Nature. I am insisting you communicate clearly and consistently, unlike theists that allow God to be both an object and a concept, so 'it' can do anything in their theory. Either energy can be an object (photon ball?) or a concept (motion), but not both!

If energy is the concept motion, then "particles carry energy" just means that particles move. If energy is an object, you're saying that particles carry this thing around with them somehow. If you disagree please explain to me the other ways something (an object) can be carried.

The distinction between object and concept is philosophy of language. In physics energy is a measurable property, something like "shape" but then with numbers

The distinction between object and concept is not philosophy. Concepts are all predicated on relationships among objects. To use a concept you must have objects as referents.

Could you transfer some of your height to me, or some of your motivation please? Of course not, these are concepts.

Sure, just stand on my back. My motivation I'm already transferring, but you're just so hardheaded. And while you are at it, could you throw me a rope to one of your "invisible shapes with location"

Haha, I stand on your back. I did not become taller. Of course you're smart enough to know this already and are just joking.

Did you transfer height? No, you stood on me. Come on. You cannot transfer or move concepts. You (object) stepped on (action of an object) me (object). You are now further from the ground.

You're transferring motivation? Could you show me how you're doing this so that I can confirm for myself?

I did... I'm motivating you to write long posts. But again you are confusing concepts with properties. That's because the only properties you want to recognize are "shape" and "location".

No, I am writing. That's it. Properties are conceptual, a property is a relationship between an object and other objects.

The universe consists only of discrete units of motion and a photon is a 'rotating' unit of motion, Since what we observe are projections of what happens one observer will notice a wave while another will detect a discrete particle.

Rotating motion of what?

Everybody and everything is pulling on everybody and everything else. Your point is moot. Thread theory has not posed an action (such as waving) divorced from an object as wave theorists generally do. In TT the rope is the entity doing the moving.

Why do you think the physical universe is restricted to "objects" and to even more restrictive "pulling objects"? How do I see a rope move?

There are only objects out there Steven. Nobody can visualize or observe that which lacks shape, because without shape there is nothing.

However push is fine, two atoms push each other when they collide. They always pull on each other.

If you are so sure there is only "shapes", then please describe the known physics properties as aspects of "shape". What's the shape of temperature? Or specific weight? Or electric charge? A simple visualisation is OK.

Temperature is not an object and does not have shape.
Weight is not an object and does not have shape.
Charge is not an object and does not have shape.

What theory? He confessed he had no idea how objects attracted each other nor why inertia and gravitation appeared to be quantitatively equivalent. He just mathematically summed up a great many observations in a concise framework. He made the bookkeeping and accounting much more tractable. He had no theory, he didn't even have a hypothesis. Well, he did propose the corpuscle for light, but he had no such hyp for gravity.

At least Newton was honest that he had no theory and did not want to pose something if he had no clue. You're just hypothesing an invisible entity that cannot be objectively detected. What's the difference?

That's exactly what we do in science, we hypothesize. Everyone agrees that the earth goes around the sun.

Are you asking me what the difference is between postulating an explanation and not postulating an explanation? I know you're smart enough to answer that one.

No, my question was "what is the difference between mathematics without explanation that matches observation and an explanation without any mathematics nor observations"?

Mathematics without an explanation is accounting or stamp collecting, not science. You are cataloging observations and classifying them. Then you're trying to make all the numbers add up so the balance sheet is even at the end. Such a description is not unique. Many different mathematical models can fit the same observations. For instance we can use an inverse square model of gravity with a bunch of dark matter. Or we can use a MOG/MOND. Or... etc. Once one mathematical description fails too much we go with the other, and then new ones sprout up that once again quantitatively account for the same measurements.

Explanations allow us to imagine and understand what might be happening. Whether an individual believes a particular explanation is up to them, but an explanation (unlike a description) has to be rational. You cannot put something on the screen that is actually orthogonal to itself, for example.

But, tell me, how is "acceleration" defined in "objectively existing something" theory?

Acceleration isn't the problem, the definition of the terms that define acceleration are the problem (position and time). The definition of acceleration is the same when the proper definitions of time, distance, location, and distance-traveled are in place.

Long way to go then. But maybe you could hypothetize something. Question is: how to determine from your definitions of objects, locations, etc. that an object is accelerating?

What's the problem? An object is accelerating if its motion is nonuniform wrt a pre-established standard.

How to determine it is "nonuniform"? More than one location? What is this pre-established standard?

[/quote]

An individual defines acceleration for the purposes of THEIR presentation. Since ALL measurements, by definition, involve comparison to a standard then the presenter simply states what his/her standard will be for the purposes of their presentation. One person says that s/he will drop a rock from the top of the lab and defines this motion as "perfectly uniform". The presenter says that acceleration will then be defined as any motion which deviates from this standard. Another researcher fires a laser across his lab and declares that this is the standard, the motion of the beam will be defined as "perfectly uniform" so that any deviation from this behavior is defined as "accelerating".

[Plasmatic]

The distinction between object and concept is philosophy of language

Nope, its epistemology.

[Plasmatic]

If you are so sure there is only "shapes", then please describe the known physics properties as aspects of "shape". What's the shape of temperature? Or specific weight? Or electric charge? A simple visualisation is OK.

All of those are concepts of dynamic relationships of entities. There are no disembodied forces.

[Joe Keenan]

Sorry if my post covers ground already covered, I read the first four pages and a feeling of soul crushing despair set in, too much ennui for my finely honed Celtic sensibilities, what was plainly discernible to me through all of the lamentation was a overwhelming sense of injustice. As a matter of fact, injustice is a none too subtle sub text to much of what is posted here.

Crothers suffered an injustice when pursuing his Doctorate, still does today, Arp's seemingly more reasonable explanation for Red Shift is not perhaps given due consideration, Gaede's theory of light and critique of mathematics is likewise ignored. Then there's the whole EU model! All this injustice leads to a profound sense of despair. No one seems to ask the million dollar question though, "Why, if everyone really believes what they profess, that is, an atheistic/agnostic fatalists worldview, is there any sense of injustice and resulting despair?"

Can there be injustice absent moral absolutes?

I would argue no.

We are moral beings, we suffer when moral injustices are made against us. I would likewise argue that the above mentioned failures of the scientific community, are moral failures. Science and Religion at one time shared a common belief, Truth. The belief that there is Truth and it can be known, carries a profound theological sub text. If Truth can be known, it is incumbent upon all to acknowledge it. Likewise, if there is error, it should be acknowledged. I would argue that the Mandarins of Science no longer believe in the existence of an objective Truth, when they rejected Truth they rejected the moral obligation that comes with it, the obligation to acknowledge it.

Instead of Philosopher Kings in a disinterested quest for Truth, we have delusional Hegelian's imagining themselves striding the Worlds Stage creating science in Their image. It's really a Passion Play of sorts, instead of Logos, science is in the process of being crucified, science walks the Way of the Cross and as it does, each of you walk with it, each suffers in the name of science.

Can there be any doubt modern science is at a crises? What happens when CERN doesn't pan out? What then? Maybe this is the way it always was, seems that way after reading Koestler. Keep up the good fight, don't let the bastards get you down.

[Plasmatic]

"Why, if everyone really believes what they profess, that is, an atheistic/agnostic fatalists worldview, is there any sense of injustice and resulting despair?"

Because morality is not the child of religion as most believe.

Can there be injustice absent moral absolutes?

Nope!

We are moral beings, we suffer when moral injustices are made against us. I would likewise argue that the above mentioned failures of the scientific community, are moral failures. Science and Religion at one time shared a common belief, Truth.
.

Yes they are moral failures.

The belief that there is Truth and it can be known, carries a profound theological sub text

Historically yes but not of necessity.

If Truth can be known, it is incumbent upon all to acknowledge it. Likewise, if there is error, it should be acknowledged. I would argue that the Mandarins of Science no longer believe in the existence of an objective Truth, when they rejected Truth they rejected the moral obligation that comes with it, the obligation to acknowledge it.

The scientist abandoned objectivity in principle long before they applied their epistemology to physics.

Instead of Philosopher Kings in a disinterested quest for Truth, we have delusional Hegelian's imagining themselves striding the Worlds Stage creating science in Their image.

We need neither and both are immoral! If you want to discuss this, we better do it off thread!

[Joe Keenan]

Can science advance in the European West/America if the people in charge of peer review don't believe in an objective Truth science should be moving toward?

Is the resistance we see to Truth worldwide? I don't think so. Five Aussie politicians stepped down over this Global Warming brouhaha. Think about this, Australia is leading the world, no dig to anyone down under, but I believe this may be a sign of the rise of a new leadership. Maybe the European West/America is largely becoming anti-scientific and other cultures will be more receptive to new paradigms?

Maybe the Aussie reaction is a foreshadowing of good news? If the Global Warming hoax collapses it may force politicians to re-examine their respective States interaction with the scientific establishment. Maybe Good Times are on the way!

[altonhare]

Can there be any doubt modern science is at a crises? What happens when CERN doesn't pan out? What then?

You misunderestimate the flexibility of ad hoc mathematical formalisms. CERN will most certainly turn up *something*. If it is what was expected we will hear the praises of particle physics sung from the rooftops. If it is not what we expected we will hear about "exciting new physics" and all the "furious energy" being put into a new scientific revolution in how we think about and understand the world.

What is certain, though, is that the particle will not die.

[junglelord]

The particle will not die, because it never existed.
Fairy Tales live forever.

[StevenO]

The particle will not die, because it never existed.
Fairy Tales live forever.

The particle never existed...duh? Particles are fine with me. Only when will they finally find out that all these particles are just photons in different disguises?