Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

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

Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Vincent Wee-Foo » Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:44 am

I would like the inputs from the member here on the following issuce concerning a critical fallacy of scientic method endorsed by mainstream:

Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox fallacies

I beleive this is one forum I could disuss such senitive topics without those trolls of mainstream marking around.

The article was compiled to take it head-on with the entire modern science community, as with astronomers, astrophysicists, mathematical physicists, cosmologists, Earth scientists and etc.

I hope the members here would find the content useful.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.
User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:08 pm

I liked what you wrote...agree with most of it. Will reread soon.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Vincent Wee-Foo » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:11 am

Sparky wrote:I liked what you wrote...agree with most of it. Will reread soon.


Thks for your affirmative respond, so far you are the first to do so. :D

Pls let me know which issue you did not quite agree with.

Here is a link to a more thorough overview to the critiques article posted, it had pried deeper into its implications with more details covered, you probably have found this link by now, anyway here it is: "Overviews of UVS".

Hope you enjoy the content.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.
User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:43 am

Vincent, it is not that i do not agree, it is that i do not understand some things.

The general overview, as i perceive it, is that we exist in an illusion, create delusions, and those spawn illusions/delusions.

If that is correct, i agree with you. To further amplify that thought, it seems that those who are labeled psychotic are highly delusional. Also, those who are highly intelligent, ie., IQ, have the ability to delude themselves in most complex scenarios. There may be some correlation, i don't know. :D

Fortunately and unfortunately, both of these, the psychotic, and the highly intelligent, are the future of science. This melding, in all areas of life, hinders as well as promotes progress. I expand my theory to include what i call the conservative part of the mind as being more of a hindrance than assistance. Science, to me, is liberal and progressive. When the conservatives gain control, as seen in church history, and in america's national policies toward science, science suffers. But, we have arrived, in spite of the fear induced reluctance to change, at a place in time of greatly expanding knowledge. Unless there is some world wide catastrophe, i suspect progress will continue, delusions, illusions and all... 8-) ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Vincent Wee-Foo » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:10 pm

Sparky wrote:Vincent, it is not that i do not agree, it is that i do not understand some things.

The general overview, as i perceive it, is that we exist in an illusion, create delusions, and those spawn illusions/delusions.

If that is correct, i agree with you. To further amplify that thought, it seems that those who are labeled psychotic are highly delusional. Also, those who are highly intelligent, ie., IQ, have the ability to delude themselves in most complex scenarios. There may be some correlation, i don't know. :D


This is generally correct.

Fortunately and unfortunately, both of these, the psychotic, and the highly intelligent, are the future of science. This melding, in all areas of life, hinders as well as promotes progress. I expand my theory to include what i call the conservative part of the mind as being more of a hindrance than assistance. Science, to me, is liberal and progressive. When the conservatives gain control, as seen in church history, and in america's national policies toward science, science suffers. But, we have arrived, in spite of the fear induced reluctance to change, at a place in time of greatly expanding knowledge. Unless there is some world wide catastrophe, i suspect progress will continue, delusions, illusions and all... 8-) ;)


In the Internet era, indeed we have arrived.

If you are concern with a widely speculated world wide catastrophe, it is not likely to happen. See a UVS subtopic on "Alignment of Galactic elements ..." that elaborates on the astronomical view for the 2012 December 21st event.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.
User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:53 am

Vincent, "If you are concern with a widely speculated world wide catastrophe, it is not likely to happen. See a UVS subtopic on "Alignment of Galactic elements ..." that elaborates on the astronomical view for the 2012 December 21st event".


No, i have no superstitious fear about the 2012 nonsense. But, from history, it seems highly probable that a world wide catastrophe will happen again, and i hold no superstitious fear about that.

I like your "The cognitive paradox fallacy in Big Bang model on expansion of space" argument.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Vincent Wee-Foo » Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:10 am

Sparky wrote:I like your "The cognitive paradox fallacy in Big Bang model on expansion of space" argument.

I am glad you like it. :D


Sparky wrote:Are you aware of EU position on redshift=distance?

I read the synopsis of The Electric Universe and have a brief understanding about the argument.

I felt the case was not posited no the same platfom, so its argument founded on flat spacetime in rhetoric could be dismissed by the BB camp with claims such as the conclusion was scientifically based on empirically observation in the curve spacetime paradigm. It was sort of like the orange and apple comparison is invalid.

IMHO, the argument have to be brought to their own courtyard and hammer it out right there. See the argument in "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space" that critically address the formal fallacy of this BB claim and this could not be denied.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.
User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:44 am

Vincent, "
See the argument in "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space"


That was going to be my next question(s). I have read that several times and do not completely understand it. But i sense that it is logically correct.

Logically, limited by the speed of light, the empirically observation of the physical universe on receding galaxies in their frame of reference would be apparently negated by timeline and time dilation effect; a timeline negation effect.


My argument against BB would be that redshift=distance has been falsified, therefore BB has been falsified.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Vincent Wee-Foo » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:17 pm

Sparky wrote:Vincent, "
See the argument in "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space"


That was going to be my next question(s). I have read that several times and do not completely understand it. But i sense that it is logically correct.

Logically, limited by the speed of light, the empirically observation of the physical universe on receding galaxies in their frame of reference would be apparently negated by timeline and time dilation effect; a timeline negation effect.


You have to think it in the BB worldview, that is, in curved spacetime with galaxies scattered within the proposed 13.7 billion year timeline, most of the galaxies were empirically observed to be receding from each other in acceleration.

In measuring the acceleration, the galaxies on various timelines were simultaneously observed over a period of time and all the readings were thus taken. It then convert the data to indicate their instantaneous proper distance for the period of time as observed, which the calculations based on proper distance, was conclusive that the galaxies did receded from each other in acceleration; hence concludes that space is expanding in acceleration.

There is no issue with the conversion of apparent distance to proper distance.

The catch is on the acceleration of receding galaxies were simultaneously observed in different timelines.

Analyse this case: the motion of a receding galaxy at the timeline of 1 bly away over a period of local time was fallaciously compared to the receding galaxy at the timeline of 10 bly away in the same period of local time. If the speed of light is infinite, the conclusion would have been correct, but the speed of light is not infinite. Got it?

My argument against BB would be that redshift=distance has been falsified, therefore BB has been falsified.


For the argument to bite, do not prick on redshift=distance has been falsified in the classical paradigm. I repeat, do not do this or mention this at all at the first place until the BB argument for this has collapsed in the debate, else, it could be rhetorically used to make your argument untenable by falsifying the classical paradigm.

Been there, done that, and therefore I know. I had ever debated with an argument against the mainstream that the mainstream version of special relativity has been falsified in the classical paradigm, but the cases presented were very technical and the average onlookers could not understand it at all. In all sorts denial by twisting and turning, it became an argument of comparing apple to orange by two different camps and therefore it could not be conclusive, leaving the onlookers more confused and puzzled instead of anything certain.

But if BB is refuted by addressing its formal fallacies on their own turf, it would be conclusive and undeniable.

Btw, pls post the link for the redshift=distance has been falsified in EU, I will take a closer look at it.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.
User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:08 pm

here is a discussion on red shift: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4660&p=52784&hilit=red+shft+equals+distance#p52784

within that thread are these links to relevant papers:
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401420

http://www.rxiv.org/astro/

http://www.plasmaredshift.org//Article_Archive.html

wikipedia about halton arp:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.w ... BE2KOoTYww

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/141963 ... PDKIKX0DER
"Big Bang Blasted" by Lyndon Ashmore
When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory . Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it ---
Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons traveling through space and losing energy to electrons.



"redshift does not equal distance" means that IT IS NOT A RELIABLE way to measure distance. It is so unreliable that it is falsified. All we know for sure is that the universe is BIG. If we do not know the age of the universe, nor how big it may be, BB is falsified. About that i do not argue much... One can not argue against a "belief", nor with people who refuse to look at and consider new evidence or ALL of the evidence.

Standard cosmologists use circular reasoning, ie., redshift=distance to prove distance which they claim proves that redshift=distance. This reasoning is intrinsic in their methods to determine distance, except for parallax.

Vincent, But if BB is refuted by addressing its formal fallacies on their own turf, it would be conclusive and undeniable.


Unfortunately, they refuse to accept evidence that would falsify their theories. They refuse to look at evidence. They refuse to reeducate themselves., and prefer to remain myopic.

Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile, "Every time the basic big bang model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on something new - inflation, dark matter and dark energy".
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Vincent Wee-Foo » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:24 am

Sparky wrote:"redshift does not equal distance" means that IT IS NOT A RELIABLE way to measure distance. It is so unreliable that it is falsified. All we know for sure is that the universe is BIG. If we do not know the age of the universe, nor how big it may be, BB is falsified. About that i do not argue much... One can not argue against a "belief", nor with people who refuse to look at and consider new evidence or ALL of the evidence.

Standard cosmologists use circular reasoning, ie., redshift=distance to prove distance which they claim proves that redshift=distance. This reasoning is intrinsic in their methods to determine distance, except for parallax.


Thks for the links and the details you highlighted. These people had put in lots of effort.

Indeed standard cosmologists use circular reasoning.

I have went throught the links on a cursory level, and what you highlighted summarized it up.

The elites of mainstream would not give up their steering wheel easily, and it does not matter to them if another explanation is better.

Sparky wrote:Unfortunately, they refuse to accept evidence that would falsify their theories. They refuse to look at evidence. They refuse to reeducate themselves., and prefer to remain myopic.


IMHO, despite the theory could explain better than the BB model, the Lyndon Ashmore argument suffers a fallacy of improper transposition. The basis of argument centered on comparing the predictions of the two theories that are based on different foundations, the claims of BB were disputed on a platform not accepted in the mainstreams worldviews.

If BB theory have a better prediction than an alternative theory with different paradigm, the proponents of the alternative theory with different paradigm would alleged that its model was falsified under the fallacy of improper transposition.

Both camps can argue till the cow goes home and it still could not be conclusive.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.
User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:27 pm

Here is a man who is attempting to correct standard theories, using their math.

In redefining
gravity
he says,
"I have shown that the gravitational field varies as the radius. This means it varies ONLY as the radius, which means it no longer obeys the inverse square law. Yes, Newton's equation still obeys the inverse square law, but it does so only because I have shown that it includes the E/M field. In my Unified Field paper I have shown that Newton's equation is a compound equation.


In my Unified Field paper I have shown that Newton's equation is a compound equation. There, I have actually done the math to express my claims in these Third Wave papers.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Vincent Wee-Foo » Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:51 pm

Sparky wrote:Here is a man who is attempting to correct standard theories, using their math.

In redefining
gravity
he says,
"I have shown that the gravitational field varies as the radius. This means it varies ONLY as the radius, which means it no longer obeys the inverse square law. Yes, Newton's equation still obeys the inverse square law, but it does so only because I have shown that it includes the E/M field. In my Unified Field paper I have shown that Newton's equation is a compound equation.


In my Unified Field paper I have shown that Newton's equation is a compound equation. There, I have actually done the math to express my claims in these Third Wave papers.


Thks alot for this link. It is a fact that the Sun revolves around a barycenter in the ecliptic plane while it move around the Galactic center, this implies inverse square law of gravity is merely an approximation based on the posit of a static Sun. The article for "The Third Wave A Redefinition of Gravity" could help me get rid of the presummed proposition of inverse square law in UVS as a common platform with universal gravitation. Miles Mathis illustrates that gravity has an electic origin that correlates to E/M field and it did not follow the inverse square law as proposited, cool. :D

Will explore this in details.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.
User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox falla

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:52 am

Hey, Vincent!...was hoping that someone smarter than me would jump in with some comments for you.....anyway, this TPOD is somewhat relevant.: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... 0there.htm

The popular conception of the scientific method is that the scientist observes a phenomenon, develops or modifies a hypothesis to explain it, and then tests the hypothesis against further observations. The three steps are repeated until the scientist decides that accepting the hypothesis is more reasonable than not accepting it.

A deeper examination reveals that the initial observations are not performed by a mind that is a tabula rasa but by one that has many often unconscious preconceptions. Indeed, the data or sensations of observation are indistinguishable from the noise unless the observer has criteria with which to distinguish data from noise.

This is why the three steps of the popular method should be—and often are, although without it being remarked—supplemented by a fourth step, called by some “error probes,” in which alternative preconceptions and hypotheses are actively searched for.



Thanks...
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm


Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest