Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue May 17, 2016 5:18 pm

jimmcginn wrote:James McGinn:
I think this is a really cool idea. There is one huge obstacle, however. And I think this obstacle is insurmountable: people (scientists) in specialized fields/disciplines tend to deeply buy-in to certain myths and extremely often
these myths are irrational, even plainly irrational.


I hope to solve this problem by focussing on observations.
If certain groups want to introduce the idea of "dark matter", they have to refer to the observations.
Which is in this case "the acceleration of matter inside galaxies greater than can be explained by gravity".

The group supporting dark matter has to focus on the actual evidence, and not all kinds
of maths to support their idea. The group also has to add the failed searches for evidence.

The group supporting electromagnetism comes on a similar level, except that they can add actual
observations of electromagnetism in the galaxies.

Unfortunately these myths--some of which are obvious nonsense--are believed on a deeply subconscious level.


That is true.

First: The website should surely state that models of our reality are "mathematical approximations".
That means that different models are valid within certain limits.

Like: g=9.81 is valid for a falling object.
It is a perfect valid theory within certain conditions.

It is also the simplest one.
According to "Occam's razor", this would be the best solution,
and we do not need to look at alternatives. That is why I hate Occam's razor.
It is for people that can not deal with different ideas simultaneously.
The website would be open to alternatives, but you will need to add observations.

A deeper example would be quantum physics.
The observation is that we see step-wise transfer of energy and charge.
Each step is called a quantum.
And we see that the distribution of these quanta are following wave-logic.

That's it. Most people agree with these observations.
We do not know what is behind this process, but for that we have
different theories.

I hope that by "forcing" observations before maths, that people
will think differently about everything.

The mainstream theories of science suddenly become very vague due to the excessive use of maths.
And certain observations even break these theories.
Too much Maths can lead to fantasy in my opinion.
Steven Crothers's work seems to confirms this.

Additionally we can discuss about the validity of certain observations.

- Were the photographs that were used to debunk Halton Arp wrong or even manipulated?
- Are the LIGO-"gravity-waves" caused by something else instead?

To improve the discussion it should again focus on observations.
The galaxies related to Halton Arp, were photographed by amateurs, confirming his ideas.
Are the LIGO results a consequence of cherry-picking, or false identification?
Did LIGO test the (likely) sensitivity of the system to magnetism?
Are there any other observations confirming LIGO's findings?

If a certain group wants to strengthen their point, they need to talk about certain observations
that they would often avoid.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:27 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:James McGinn:
I think this is a really cool idea. There is one huge obstacle, however. And I think this obstacle is insurmountable: people (scientists) in specialized fields/disciplines tend to deeply buy-in to certain myths and extremely often
these myths are irrational, even plainly irrational.


I hope to solve this problem by focusing on observations.


These disciplines have redefined the meaning of observations to confirm their basic assumptions. So i don't think focusing on observations will change anything. For example, in meteorology the notions of convection and latent heat are sacred notions that have no empirical basis. Nevertheless, nobody in meteorology would test them and nobody outside of meteorology cares. More to the point, no observation can dispute the perceived validity of these notions since all relevant observations--storms and such--are presumed to be a result of them. You can observe all you want but the reality is that until somebody with authority within meteorology endeavors to rigorously test these notion nobody is going to give it much attention.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:17 am

I'm working on ways to improve science & science discussion again. I need collaborators. Feel free to comment here or at http://us23.chatzy.com/34539297354057

I hope you interested people will help self-assemble a Science Improvement Team that includes me at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6226

My ideas from last year are at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7680 I'll try to get them updated before long.

Bruce Nappi at CNPS at http://naturalphilosophy.org has similar interest for that site, so I hope to collaborate with others to experiment with ideas in the Science Improvement Team Space and then try to use our findings to help produce an alternative science Wiki at the CNPS site.

Does this sound exciting? If not, how can it be worded to sound as exciting as possible?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:54 am

ALL ARE INVITED TO HELP MAKE CONTENT FOR EXPERIMENTAL ALT-SCI WIKI
I'm working on it at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15911

Here are the main topics for the Wiki:
The Universe - Galaxy Filaments - Great Voids - Galaxy Clusters - Galaxies - Galactic Bulges - Interstellar Medium - Galactic Halos - Star Clusters - Stars & Ringstars - Planets & Moons - Asteroids, Comets & Meteors - Dust & Matter - Radiation - Space & Time - Life - Conscious Beings - Intelligent Beings - Society - Spirit

SIMPLE METHOD
The Suggested Directions are:
1. Quote main facts & claims from Wikipedia on each of the above topics.
2. List which claims are improbable.
3. List facts that disprove each improbable claim.
- It's okay to just do steps 1 & 2 for now, if you like, since 3 will take more time & effort.

EXAMPLE
Here's an example of what I started to do regarding "Universe".
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7738

FUTURE PLAN
The next step after providing better alternative info on each of those topics, is to list hierarchies of facts about each one and provide a Wiki entry for each item in each hierarchy of facts.

VOLUNTEERS
Who volunteers to work on which topics? It's okay for any number of volunteers to work on the same topic/s.

All are welcome to post submissions to this thread.

MORE IDEAS
If you have better things to do than volunteer to make a Wiki, but have other ideas for improving science or science discussion, feel free to say so here. Do you want people to try out your ideas? Say so.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Previous

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest