Groupthink Theory

[WalterP]

Thank you Pantheory.

 

 

So, how do you know that your belief in your own theories isn't "overly strong", blinding you to evidence that contradicts them?

 

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

On 11/5/2020 at 3:34 PM, WalterP said:

Thank you Pantheory.

 

 

So, how do you know that your belief in your own theories isn't "overly strong", blinding you to evidence that contradicts them?

 

 

Walter.

 

I don't!   it's only my belief in my general understandings of the world in the absence of Groupthink. Nobody else should believe in my theories or teachings unless they decide to do so based upon their lengthy readings and positive considerations of my writings (357 pages long, short version), with the ultimate understanding that any belief in anything can be wrong.

 

Without the great task of reading my writings, I recommend that everyone should think for themselves completely divorced from Groupthink and the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum

 

[WalterP]

Thank you Pantheory.

 

However, you and I seem to be talking at cross purposes, when it comes to my second point.

 

I wrote this...

 

"How do you propose to fairly judge between thousands of people, all of whom firmly believe that only they are right and all others are wrong?"

 

Which does not relate or refer to Groupthink. In Groupthink many people give their credence to a theory that is not theirs.  But I am asking you a different question. There are many thousands of alternative scientists who do not believe in the theories of others, but that only their own theories are correct. This is not Groupthink because there is no group involved. This is individual self-belief.

 

 

You have suggested taking time and money away from mainstream science to investigate the merits of alternative theories like these. 

 

So, to repeat my question...

 

"How do you propose to fairly judge between thousands of people, all of whom firmly believe that only they are right and all others are wrong?"

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

19 hours ago, WalterP said:

Thank you Pantheory.

 

However, you and I seem to be talking at cross purposes, when it comes to my second point.

 

I wrote this...

 

"How do you propose to fairly judge between thousands of people, all of whom firmly believe that only they are right and all others are wrong?"

 

Which does not relate or refer to Groupthink. In Groupthink many people give their credence to a theory that is not theirs.  But I am asking you a different question. There are many thousands of alternative scientists who do not believe in the theories of others, but that only their own theories are correct. This is not Groupthink because there is no group involved. This is individual self-belief.

 

 

You have suggested taking time and money away from mainstream science to investigate the merits of alternative theories like these. 

 

So, to repeat my question...

 

"How do you propose to fairly judge between thousands of people, all of whom firmly believe that only they are right and all others are wrong?"

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Concerning  alternative theorists, as you suggest, they should not be believed any more than mainstream theorists,  excepting upon the merits of their propositions. We can only be able to know of such merits when their ideas are more widely dispersed. This can better happen if mainstream practitioners are willing to listen to alternative ideas. Upon such diversion from Groupthink, more of such theories will be available to the public based upon positive writing by mainstream critics, and based upon their own merits upon their publication and related discussions. Few real scientists believe that what they propose is necessarily gospel. Never be afraid to change your mind, even a number of times.

[WalterP]

22 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

 

Concerning  alternative theorists, as you suggest, they should not be believed any more than mainstream theorists,  excepting upon the merits of their propositions. We can only be able to know of such merits when their ideas are more widely dispersed. This can better happen if mainstream practitioners are willing to listen to alternative ideas. Upon such diversion from Groupthink, more of such theories will be available to the public based upon positive writing by mainstream critics, and based upon their own merits upon their publication and related discussions. Few real scientists believe that what they propose is necessarily gospel.

 

Pantheory,

 

Once again you haven't answered the question I put to you.

 

I did not ask whether these alternative theorists should be believed any more than mainstream theorists.

 

I asked you how you would judge between alternative theorists.

 

Not between alternative theorists and mainstream theorists.

 

How would you judge the merits of theories proposed only by alternative theorists?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Pantheory,

 

Once again you haven't answered the question I put to you.

 

I did not ask whether these alternative theorists should be believed any more than mainstream theorists.

 

I asked you how you would judge between alternative theorists.

 

Not between alternative theorists and mainstream theorists.

 

How would you judge the merits of theories proposed only by alternative theorists?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I think you are asking how anyone should judge between different proposals. For this question I would say first become educated as much as possible based upon your interest in that particular subject. Secondly judge the merits of the mainstream or alternative proposal based upon your opinion of the proposal's merits and the logic involved according to your understanding. If a proposal cannot be explained and understood based upon common logic then be leery of it IMO. It's certainly OK to consider other's opinions of it, but ultimately if you are really interested, your opinion should be the most important one to you concerning the evidence for, and reasonableness of a particular proposal. But always be open minded enough to be willing and able to change your opinion if contrary evidence, a better proposal, improved logic etc. presents itself. If it is beyond your scope of understanding do the best you can. I've been there more than once

[Robert_Tulip]

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

When you take good intentions and then try and politicize them, it often turns out nasty.

·       Communism has good intentions, that all should be equal, and that reward should match effort.  Unfortunately, such worthy ideals have destructive effects when put into practice, destroying incentive and fomenting intolerance.  But those who are gripped by the power of the idea can ignore all the negative consequences, holding a shining vision while the world collapses around them.  Such is the influence of groupthink.

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The end (violence and / or verbal polemic) justifies the means of trying to protect people.

·       That is round the wrong way.  In this case the end or goal is to protect people, while the means to achieve it is violence and polemic. 

 

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

This goes for riots or even just the general negative talking points towards people viewed as contrary to the party line way of thinking. 

·       Groupthink is entirely about the tribal belonging of a party line.  It is effective because in politics unity creates strength while division is death.  That power dynamic means the group ideology has a momentum that is immensely difficult to shift, and dissent results in being shunned and excluded.  It leads people to pick their battles, recognising that confronting an institution can be a very career limiting move.

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Without going into a political direction, I think we can discuss some of these issues from a scientific or soft science (psychological) direction. Partisanship spans science, religion, and politics alike: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisanship

·       The trouble is that in each of these areas, science, religion and politics, where there is sincere conflict there is likely to be some truth on both sides.  But the groupthink tribal attitude insists that truth is entirely partisan, because ‘if they say it, it must be wrong’.  Philosophy has long seen the search for truth as a dialectic – an ongoing conversation between differing points of view which can learn from each other.

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

One reaction that I see to this case study of groupthink, is that it will often be resisted by others who see it as a negative cloaked in a positive outfit. And don't buy into the narratives. That can lead to further issues of denial and conspiracy theory on the more extreme spectrum of resisting a given groupthink narrative. 

·       Groupthink is in fact a form of conspiracy, an agreement to ignore defects in the shared ideology.  It of course relates closely to Orwell’s concepts of doublethink, the ability to believe contradictory statements, and the less known concept of crimestop “the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity... orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body.”

 

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Disagree with narrative ------- deny the existence of narrative basis ------- claim that the narrative is an elaborate conspiracy

 

·       That certainly applies to climate change.  For denialists to assert that all the world’s scientists are deliberately deceiving is absurd.  Yet the grain of truth in climate denial is that by itself shutting down the fossil fuel industries would not stop global warming.

 

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

And with global warming or any similar number of issues, you can see people fall into these general categories of opinion. And I think that the groupthink factor drives a lot of it, because if you simply pick up on some kind of groupthink in progress, even if you don't understand the details at play, the whole thing can become very off putting. You can't put your finger on it, but somethings not right. There's something wrong about what what everyone is claiming or doing.

·       That is exactly right.  I do not agree with Bjorn Lomborg’s claims that we don’t particularly need to worry about climate change, but I do agree with his observation quoted by Trump that full implementation of the Paris Accord would only cut the projected temperature increase by a fraction of a degree.  There is immense groupthink around the Paris Accord which makes it very difficult to get any discussion of criticism of it.

·       Religion is similar, with church members agreeing to ignore how kooky and irrational their literal beliefs might be, simply because it provides the emotional comfort of belonging to a tribe.

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

This is the way I felt as a freshman dorm student at academy. Something was very wrong with the group, but I didn't know the details. I just knew that everyone was going with the crowd and peer pressuring everyone else to go along with the crowd as well.  All while preaching not to go with the crowd and asking questions like, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do the same?" Never even realizing that calling everyone up front to the stage to show that they, "love jesus," is the very same thing - peer pressure to groupthink. 

·       Part of the cunning brilliance of Christianity was captured in the Monty Python movie Life of Brian, where the crowd all shout “we are all individuals” when Brian asks them to think for themselves.  Conformism under the guise of individualism is equally a solid marketing strategy for consumer products like clothes and music.

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I think it's very similar with partisanship and groupthink in science and politics. Most of it is done unconsciously and with a lot of cognitive dissonance involved in it. 

·       A trouble with groupthink (at least for rational people) is that as soon as it is observed it dissolves.  People cannot accept that they only believe something in order to conform.  Everyone insists that their own beliefs are true and good.  No one says to themselves “this statement is false and evil but I believe it anyway”.  There is always an apologetic process of rationalisation to argue for the legitimacy of belief.

[WalterP]

14 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I think you are asking how anyone should judge between different proposals. For this question I would say first become educated as much as possible based upon your interest in that particular subject. Secondly judge the merits of the mainstream or alternative proposal based upon your opinion of the proposal's merits and the logic involved according to your understanding. If a proposal cannot be explained and understood based upon common logic then be leery of it IMO. It's certainly OK to consider other's opinions of it, but ultimately if you are really interested, your opinion should be the most important one to you concerning the evidence for, and reasonableness of a particular proposal. But always be open minded enough to be willing and able to change your opinion if contrary evidence, a better proposal, improved logic etc. presents itself. If it is beyond your scope of understanding do the best you can. I've been there more than once

 

Thank you Pantheory.

 

 

You suggest education, common logic, reasonableness and open mindedness.

 

Of these four only education has standards which are easily quantifiable and are internationally recognized.

 

So what level of education would you consider to be the necessary requirement for judging between different proposals?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Thank you Pantheory.

 

 

You suggest education, common logic, reasonableness and open mindedness.

 

Of these four only education has standards which are easily quantifiable and are internationally recognized.

 

So what level of education would you consider to be the necessary requirement for judging between different proposals?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

There is no minimum education level necessary to make decisions about what one should believe or not. Sometimes self education (autodidacs) is the best education, especially nowadays with the aid of the internet. Sometimes ones education level can also be a handicap to logic if one has been taught falsehoods year after year. As I said before, do the best that you can concerning what seems logical to you. Always consider that the opposite position could be true or have some validity to it, and try to stay away from Groupthink influences.  Do not value the majority opinion around you any more than your own.

[WalterP]

Thank you Pantheory.

 

 

Can you please give me a reason (not an opinion or a belief) as to why reality should be correctly understood by you?

 

I already know that you are of the opinion and belief that reality is simple enough to be correctly understood by you.

 

So please, do not respond to me by referring to or restating that opinion and belief.

 

I am specifically asking you to justify your belief and your opinion with a reason why reality should be correctly understood by you.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

On 11/6/2020 at 2:56 PM, WalterP said:

Thank you Pantheory.

 

 

Can you please give me a reason (not an opinion or a belief) as to why reality should be correctly understood by you?

 

I already know that you are of the opinion and belief that reality is simple enough to be correctly understood by you.

 

So please, do not respond to me by referring to or restating that opinion and belief.

 

I am specifically asking you to justify your belief and your opinion with a reason why reality should be correctly understood by you.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Walter, your questions continue to veer away from the topic like many of your postings. Please try to stay on the  topic Groupthinik. I will answer this question about me personally but hereafter try to stay on topic. 

 

"I am specifically asking you to justify your belief and your opinion with a reason why reality should be correctly understood by you."

 

Not just me, but it's human nature to want to understand the reality of your surroundings. For many people including me, my understanding started with religion as a child. I went to church and generally believed the teachings of Christianity. Sometime in Junior high school I started realizing that science teaches different "truths" than religion. My religion allowed one to believe both science and religion to a certain extent. But as to the beginning of the universe none of the answers seemed satisfactory to me at age 12. The biblical story of creation seemed ridiculous to me, an infinite universe in time seemed unrealistic, and a beginning Big Bang also seemed ridiculous to me. But as to evolution it seemed like a certainty to me. So I was faced with science is right and religion is wrong. OK, I thought, if religion is wrong then how did the universe begin and function, since I was also unimpressed with the explanations of science. So before the internet, I studied a lot about science, evolution, astronomy, cosmology, and all other aspects of science. Maybe about age 15-16 I became an atheist and had pretty much figured out how the universe worked IMO based upon telescopic observations of the time, completely separate from the two main theories in cosmology at that time, the Steady State and Big Bang models. 

 

The theory I proposed at age 16 is almost exactly the same as the theory that I have now excepting a lot more detail has been added to it, 20 pages compared to 357 pages. 

 

So If one does not believe in religion, most people would want and need another explanation like science. Since I didn't like the science explanations concerning cosmology and modern physics,  I formulated my own theories in modern physics separate from most present theories. Math was no part of my original theories; It was all about logic. 

 

This is my last answer to you separate from the topic of Groupthink, unless you PM me. Then I will likely be willing to answer further questions. 

 

 

 

 

[Robert_Tulip]

It is highly questionable to accuse the scientific community of groupthink for accepting Big Bang cosmology as the best available explanation.

 

A discussion forum that invites independent researchers to present challenges to mainstream astronomy is at https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forumdisplay.php?17-Against-the-Mainstream

 

This board is well worth a review to see how badly alternative views stack up against the prevailing consensus.  For example, there is a widespread inability among alternative proponents to engage with mathematical reasoning.  This gap makes many against the mainstream ideas relatively easy for experts to refute.  Charges of groupthink should only be levelled when the beliefs in question have a clear and obvious refusal to engage in factual discussion.

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, Robert_Tulip said:

It is highly questionable to accuse the scientific community of groupthink for accepting Big Bang cosmology as the best available explanation.

 

A discussion forum that invites independent researchers to present challenges to mainstream astronomy is at https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forumdisplay.php?17-Against-the-Mainstream

 

This board is well worth a review to see how badly alternative views stack up against the prevailing consensus.  For example, there is a widespread inability among alternative proponents to engage with mathematical reasoning.  This gap makes many against the mainstream ideas relatively easy for experts to refute.  Charges of groupthink should only be levelled when the beliefs in question have a clear and obvious refusal to engage in factual discussion.

 

Yeah, the mathematical backbone of the BB model is General Relativity. Math was my major in college and my argument is instead with the logic of the BB theory. IMO groupthink has almost everything to do with bad theories in modern physics. And theories in modern physics veer too from the scientific method as a result of Groupthink. But If our conversation necessarily varies into particular theories I can start a new thread on that subject and the general problems with modern physics in particular if you wish.

 

But for now I think I can provide you with some answers to your assertions, in line with Groupthink, which I think are generally valid. Yes, I agree that many or most non-mainstream theories lack mathematical support. But some or many can claim the same support as the BB model but vary greatly as to the logic involved. IMO only about half of them that I have reviewed can readily be refuted. Few of these, however,  can make it to mainstream review to be formally called alternative theories.

 

Here is just a very short list of such theories and brief descriptions of them. These are not even the most well known of them.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

 

about 50 are referred to or briefly explained on the link above.

 

And there are many more modern cosmology theories that one can find on the internet. Aside from the BB in modern physics, there also is no logic in quantum theories IMO, and there are almost countless problems with the standard model of particle physics. IMO entwined in all of the many related "mistakes" looms the unrecognized presence of Groupthink and its controlling negative effects.

 

As to the problems with BB cosmology, it is built on a main pillar of the expansion of space, but there in no evidence for this hypothesis which probably can't be tested. There are many other explanations for galactic redshifts that also can't be disproved either IMO. Next, is the belief in dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter has not been observed and generally does not appear to exist near the center of the galaxy or in our neighborhood, called the Cuspy Halo problem. Dark Energy remains an unknown with no evidence for its existence other than the Hubble distance equation which IMO is about 10% wrong, which is the difference in the disagreement of the value of the so-called Hubble constant. Next is the Inflation hypothesis having no evidence at all IMO for its existence. That's it. The entire BB theory IMO is based upon generally untestable hypotheses.

 

I think discussions of the problems with theories in general makes sense in this forum because many people here have given up their faith in religion for a faith in science and I wish to point out that science, like all human endeavors, is susceptible to human error also. This revelation is important in case this or that important theory may fall someday. IMO It is the scientific method that leads to real understandings of reality if it is followed.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

My impression is that "science" is not a set of models, but more a set of procedures that can produce those models, refine them and ultimately refute them. If any present theory, and I mean theory in the scientific sense, would be completed, or refuted, or reexamined, this DOES NOT mean science is wrong. If you use mathematical symbols and reach a wrong conclusions, that does not mean the mathematical procedure is wrong, in its essence. Maybe and probably in that temporary use. And to correct it you use more or better mathematical procedure. 

 

Abrahamic religions, from my observations, are the opposite. They start from unalterable dogmas, revealed to certain individuals. As a system, it usually does not accept critique, and it demands total submission ( islam = submission ) . It sees all procedures which end up at a different result as wrong. Furthemore, being based on revelation, it is out of the control of any human being, regardless of their characteristics. You cannot "do" anything to become a prophet, if God himself does not choose you. From the Bible and the Quran, it is clear that, while in different ways, God chose Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, while there were also other, maybe many, very pious people around them. The choice is extremely evident with Jesus, him being created in a special, non ordinary manner.

 

So I see science as a collection of methods of investigation of reality, while abrahamic religions as systems of unquestionable assertions about reality. To be a scientist, you DO science. To be a believer , you BELIEVE something.

[pantheory]

11 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

My impression is that "science" is not a set of models, but more a set of procedures that can produce those models, refine them and ultimately refute them. If any present theory, and I mean theory in the scientific sense, would be completed, or refuted, or reexamined, this DOES NOT mean science is wrong. If you use mathematical symbols and reach a wrong conclusions, that does not mean the mathematical procedure is wrong, in its essence. Maybe and probably in that temporary use. And to correct it you use more or better mathematical procedure.  ..............

 

I generally agree with nearly all that you say here. IMO opinion, however, in modern physics we have few good theories, and many like the BB model cannot meet the original definition of a theory which requires a valid theory and hypothesis to be both testable and falsifiable. The scientific method can be described as a method of procedure consisting of systematic observations, experiments, measurements, formulations, testings, and modification of hypotheses as may be needed. If these procedures are all followed then the science involved is properly directed. But too often hypotheses and theories are neither testable, falsifiable, or logical IMO.

 

your quote:

"Abrahamic religions, from my observations, are the opposite. They start from unalterable dogmas, revealed to certain individuals. As a system, it usually does not accept critique, and it demands total submission ( islam = submission ) . It sees all procedures which end up at a different result as wrong. Furthemore, being based on revelation, it is out of the control of any human being, regardless of their characteristics. You cannot "do" anything to become a prophet, if God himself does not choose you. From the Bible and the Quran, it is clear that, while in different ways, God chose Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, while there were also other, maybe many, very pious people around them. The choice is extremely evident with Jesus, him being created in a special, non ordinary manner."

 

Even if both theory and religion are wrong in explaining a particular facet of reality , Abrahamic religions are almost impossible to believe by reading their text IMO, and often easily refutable by logic and history. One produces modern technology and the other is no more than the opiate of the masses, according to a famous quote.
 

your quote:

"So I see science as a collection of methods of investigation of reality, while Abrahamic religions as systems of unquestionable assertions about reality. To be a scientist, you DO science. To be a believer , you BELIEVE something."

 

And of course this is true.   

 

My beef is with what I perceive to be the distortion of science by the effects of Groupthink.

 

 

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

I concede that my line of questioning has veered off topic.  This is your thread and the discussion at hand concerns Groupthink.  My apologies for not staying on topic.

 

Under other circumstances I would have had something to say about your last message to me.

 

But to do that would have been to go off topic again, so I won't go there.

 

However, you and I could continue in a new thread, elsewhere in this forum.

 

Please let me know if that's acceptable to you.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

[pantheory]

27 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Pantheory,

 

I concede that my line of questioning has veered off topic.  This is your thread and the discussion at hand concerns Groupthink.  My apologies for not staying on topic.

 

Under other circumstances I would have had something to say about your last message to me.

 

But to do that would have been to go off topic again, so I won't go there.

 

However, you and I could continue in a new thread, elsewhere in this forum.

 

Please let me know if that's acceptable to you.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

Sure, that's great. A new thread with a new topic for discussion. Tell me how you want it titled and I could start it if you prefer, or you can start it and tell me where you put it. Let's be careful in the science vs. religion forum concerning the sensitivity of discussion effecting others possibly vulnerable and the objectives of this forum, as you have mentioned to me before.

[WalterP]

Thank you Pantheory.

 

Rather than you and I running too many threads at once and hogging the forum, why don't we see how this one pans out before launching a new one?

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

3 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Thank you Pantheory.

 

Rather than you and I running too many threads at once and hogging the forum, why don't we see how this one pans out before launching a new one?

 

Walter.

 

OK, great.

[WalterP]

Returning to the topic of Groupthink...

 

 

 

I don't know if anyone else in this thread has seen the parallel, but right now a similar kind of controversy is being played out in political arenas of the United States.

 

I'll pair up the elements of my argument, so that you can see the similarities.

 

 

Pantheory alleges that the widespread practice of Groupthink has a distorting and damaging effect upon mainstream science.

So much so that the trustworthiness of the mainstream scientific establishment is called into doubt.

Leading to its published results being untrustworthy and not giving a reliable picture of reality.

 

Trump alleges that the widespread practice of postal voter fraud has a distorting and damaging effect upon the current election.

So much so that the trustworthiness of the current electoral system in the US is called into doubt.

Leading to its published results being untrustworthy and not giving a reliable picture of reality.

 

 

Perhaps I'm stretching the analogy too far, but when it comes to the settling both issues, the common denominator is evidence.  Beliefs and opinions do not stand up under the spotlight of dispassionate scrutiny.  Evidence does.

 

 

Curiously enough, the parallels and similarities continue.

 

It is generally conceded by politicians that postal voting fraud does exist and it is generally conceded by scientists that Groupthink does exist.

 

But infrequent examples of both these things in politics and in science do not merit calling the published results of either sphere into doubt.

 

Nor do these occasional examples merit the complete overhaul of both existing systems.

 

What is needed in both cases is... convincing evidence of widespread systemic failures in both spheres.

 

 

It therefore falls to those alleging those failures to make good on their allegations with evidence.

 

The ball is firmly in the court of the accusers to present their evidence.

 

Personal beliefs and opinions will not cut it.

 

 

 

Where's the evidence of the widespread systemic failure of Groupthink in science?

 

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

56 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Returning to the topic of Groupthink...

 

 

 

I don't know if anyone else in this thread has seen the parallel, but right a similar kind of controversy is being played out in political arenas of the United States.

 

I'll pair up the elements of my argument, so that you can see the similarities.

 

 

Pantheory alleges that the widespread practice of Groupthink has a distorting and damaging effect upon mainstream science.

So much so that the trustworthiness of the mainstream scientific establishment is called into doubt.

Leading to its published results being untrustworthy and not giving a reliable picture of reality.

 

Trump alleges that the widespread practice of postal voter fraud has a distorting and damaging effect upon the current election.

So much so that the trustworthiness of the current electoral system in the US is called into doubt.

Leading to its published results being untrustworthy and not giving a reliable picture of reality.

 

 

Perhaps I'm stretching the analogy too far, but when it comes to the settling both issues, the common denominator is evidence.  Beliefs and opinions do not stand up under the spotlight of dispassionate scrutiny.  Evidence does.

 

 

Curiously enough, the parallels and similarities continue.

 

It is generally conceded by politicians that postal voting fraud does exist and it is generally conceded by scientists that Groupthink does exist.

 

But infrequent examples of both these things in politics and in science do not merit calling the published results of either sphere into doubt.

 

Nor do these occasional examples merit the complete overhaul of both existing systems.

 

What is needed in both cases is... convincing evidence of widespread systemic failures in both spheres.

 

 

It therefore falls to those alleging those failures to make good on their allegations with evidence.

 

The ball is firmly in the court of the accusers to present their evidence.

 

Personal beliefs and opinions will not cut it.

 

 

 

Where's the evidence of the widespread systemic failure of Groupthink in science?

 

 

Walter.

 

I believe my rantings are a harbinger of what will eventually become obvious. My expectations concerning cosmology is that after the James Webb infrared telescope goes up and is properly placed and properly functioning, within maybe 5 years thereafter the Big Bang model will begin to change, and some alternatives of merit will become popular and challenge the theory. This will be because the James Webb will see a universe that looks the same as it does now with present telescopes including the Hubble. Of course through an infrared scope interpretations will have to be made, which means that they also can be misinterpreted. But I expect the interpretation results will be shocking just like many present observations discussing how some of the earliest galaxies look very similar to modern galaxies, as I expect those interested have already read in current science news.

 

In other aspects of modern physics many questions remain, the controversies of which I expect will continue increasing until changing theory will eventually result as the result of some new insights and observations. These are my predictions. Groupthink suppression, if that's what it is, cannot hold back realization beyond a certain point.

 

I hope it doesn't have to boil down to Max Planck's famous quotation concerning a new scientific truth:

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

 

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

I would not go so far as to say that you are ranting, but it seems to me that your words in this thread do not amount to much more than an opinion piece.  

 

That said, you've just mentioned the JWST and what you hope it will find in the future.

 

All well and good, but this isn't 2025 or 2026.  It's 2020.  

 

So, can you go further than your opinions and your beliefs and provide evidence for your allegations... today?

 

Or can you cite past evidence of massive, widespread and systemic Groupthink in the mainstream scientific establishment?

 

If not, then your opinions and your beliefs remain just that and no more.

 

If so, then please have at it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

22 hours ago, WalterP said:

Pantheory,

 

I would not go so far as to say that you are ranting, but it seems to me that your words in this thread do not amount to much more than an opinion piece.  

 

That said, you've just mentioned the JWST and what you hope it will find in the future.

 

All well and good, but this isn't 2025 or 2026.  It's 2020.  

 

So, can you go further than your opinions and your beliefs and provide evidence for your allegations... today?

 

Or can you cite past evidence of massive, widespread and systemic Groupthink in the mainstream scientific establishment?

 

If not, then your opinions and your beliefs remain just that and no more.

 

If so, then please have at it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

As I've stated, one cannot challenge the effects of Groupthink unless errors can be pointed out. This is easy for me to do, but anyone's assertions do not cut the ice. The mainstream must be able to collectively recognize their own problems of Groupthink suppression. No single individual or small group can do this. It needs to be a well-understood problem as a result of a big failure of theory IMO.  And again I hope it doesn't have to come down to Max Planck's quote above, jokingly or otherwise, that most of those scientists that believe theory falsehoods have to die first before the new "truth" of theory can emerge. Until such a time of internal problem recognition, my statements concerning Groupthink being involved with the errors of science and religion, are only my opinions as I almost always indicate. Everything concerning the effect of psychology Groupthink theory is a matter of opinion after whatever evidence might be in consideration.

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

If you were a theist defending your religion, what you've written in response to me would qualify as 'shifting the goalposts'.

 

I didn't ask you to comment on mainstream science recognizing their own systemic failure of Groupthink.

 

I asked you if you could present past evidence of massive, widespread and systemic Groupthink in the mainstream scientific establishment. 

 

Evidence that goes further than just your opinions and beliefs.

 

You claim that this is easy for you to do.

 

Then please do it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

Pantheory,

 

If you were a theist defending your religion, what you've written in response to me would qualify as 'shifting the goalposts'.

 

I didn't ask you to comment on mainstream science recognizing their own systemic failure of Groupthink.

 

I asked you if you could present past evidence of massive, widespread and systemic Groupthink in the mainstream scientific establishment. 

 

Evidence that goes further than just your opinions and beliefs.

 

You claim that this is easy for you to do.

 

Then please do it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

As you know, Groupthink is a theory in psychology. It is not a fact, like all hypotheses. The effects of Groupthing can never be more than opinion, sometimes with much evidence to support it in a particular case where most would agree with. But for other cases few people might attribute idea suppression or group pressure to Groupthink. Since it is a theory, the exact effects of Groupthink in a particular case will always be a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the influences of Groupthink has destroyed nearly the entire truth of modern physics in every field of it, providing only marginal value to science in that field. But that's just my opinion, and could never be more than opinion regardless of the evidence that I might be able to provide to support it. There are too many variables in the human psyche and related group psychology.

 

Even if someday the mainstream might consider group idea suppression or group pressure as being a verifiable Groupthink fact, in any particular case however it will always be a matter of opinion IMO