What's right or wrong about science

[pantheory]

Somewhat off topic conversations from Groupthink theory, Science vs. Religion forum

 

WalterP

 

 “………….My current position, in the light of your input Pantheory, is that while I acknowledge that such a thing exists, in this thread I've seen no convincing evidence that it is as widespread, as systemic and as damaging to science as you claim.

…………..the burden of proof rests upon you to substantiate your claim with evidence.  The bottom line in both cases is evidence. 

But, if the relativism of Perspectivism is invoked, then evidence becomes meaningless.  If three people can look at dog and one sees a cat, the other a bird and the last a fish, then compromise is impossible.  But if all three agree to common rules of interpretation, then compromise is possible.

Compromise requires movement away from solipsistic individualism and towards collectivism. And I see no indication of any such compromise from you, Pantheory. “

[◊ Krowb ◊]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[pantheory]

Yes, it seems we both agree that the errors caused by Groupthink exist. You think that Groupthink in science is a relatively small problem and I believe in many cases it has been the back-breaker of many science theories.

 

Example 1:

 

Example 1: The Big Bang theory. I believe that the Big Bang theory is entirely wrong. I can't think of any part of the theory that is correct. If I am right the handicaps of Groupthink would very likely be the main cause of such great error as an entire theory.

 

Example 2: Quantum Theory:  I believe every mainstream theory explanation that tries to logically justify Quantum Mechanics is wrong.  If so then there is no known logic for Quantum Mechanics, even though it is our best system for predicting the probability of events in the Quantum realm.

 

Example 3: Special Relativity: I believe the theory of Special Relativity is entirely wrong because there are background fields whereby a preferred reference frame can be determined: These theories are 'the center of gravity', Zero Point Field, dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs field etc.

 

Example 4: General Relativity: I believe the equations of GR are the best that we have concerning distances up to several dozen of light years, but the theory requires the hypothesis of dark matter for distances beyond that; then the theory can become unpredictable mathematically since the quantities and locations of the supposed dark matter cannot be determined. This is the mathematical incompleteness of the model. The logic of GR requires the warping of space which IMO cannot be tested.

 

Example 5: The Standard Model: The standard model of particle physics proposes the existence of quarks, gluons, point particles, at least 3 forces at a distance, It does not include or explain gravity, It proposes the characteristic of spin as not being real, it has too much error at higher energies, it cannot explain dark matter, dark energy etc. Few of the related hypothesis could ever be tested questioning how much of the theory is simply speculation. 

 

Example 6: untestable hypotheses: All the hypothesis of the Big Bang model plus many others such as multiverses, infinite and finite space and time, warping and expansion of space, human observation changes reality (QM), the prime mover, the beginnings of the universe, etc.

 

If most of my assertions above are true then there is a great deal wrong with modern physics, and IMO much of it is related to the many possible problems of Groupthink. Any aspect of a theory that cannot be tested is best described as speculation rather than a hypothesis.

 

Both theory and hypotheses must be testable and falsifiable by a standard definition of them.

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Krowb said:

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

Tis true. But few wish to call science a mere "belief," in some cases backed up by little or nothing valid IMO, rather than strong evidence backed up by the scientific method. Unfortunately this idea plays right into the hands of religious folk, many of which understand little science and that much of modern technology has been produced by the scientific method.

[WalterP]

Pantheory has snipped out a vital part of my comments.  Here is how I should have been quoted.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My current position, in the light of your input Pantheory, is that while I acknowledge that such a things exists, in this thread I've seen no convincing evidence that it is as widespread, as systemic and as damaging to science as you claim.

 

Just as the burden of proof rests upon those Republicans claiming widespread, systemic and damaging electoral fraud, so the burden of proof rests upon you to substantiate your claim with evidence.  The bottom line in both cases is evidence. 

 

But, if the relativism of Perspectivism is invoked, then evidence becomes meaningless.  If three people can look at dog and one sees a cat, the other a bird and the last a fish, then compromise is impossible.  But if all three agree to common rules of interpretation, then compromise is possible.

 

Compromise requires movement away from solipsistic individualism and towards collectivism.

 

And I see no indication of any such compromise from you, Pantheory.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I was making a valid comparison between Trump's accusations of widespread electoral fraud and Pantheory's accusations of widespread Groupthink in mainstream science.  Pantheory selectively cut out the comparison I was making, totally changing the thrust of my argument and diluting its effect.  The comparison is relevant and timely.  I made it because the ongoing controversy in the US about electoral fraud will be decided in the courts on the basis of just one thing; evidence.  

 

But Pantheory has presented no substantial evidence for widespread Groupthink in mainstream science.  Like certain Republicans he has been long on allegations and short on actual evidence.  Long on beliefs and opinions, but short on anything else of substance.  

 

In this forum the bottom line isn't belief or opinion, but evidence.  That's because we Ex-Christians are sceptical of any and all claims until we see the shape of the evidence.  When we see no persuasive evidence, we are not persuaded.  I have seen Pantheory present NO persuasive evidence of widespread, systemic and damaging Groupthink in mainstream science.  Therefore, I remain sceptical of his claims and do not share in his beliefs or his opinions.

 

For the record, I don't care if Pantheory misquoted me accidentally or deliberately.  What I do care about is that my words and my argument were misrepresented by him.  I've now put that right.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, WalterP said:

Pantheory has snipped out a vital part of my comments.  Here is how I should have been quoted.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My current position, in the light of your input Pantheory, is that while I acknowledge that such a things exists, in this thread I've seen no convincing evidence that it is as widespread, as systemic and as damaging to science as you claim.

 

Just as the burden of proof rests upon those Republicans claiming widespread, systemic and damaging electoral fraud, so the burden of proof rests upon you to substantiate your claim with evidence.  The bottom line in both cases is evidence. 

 

But, if the relativism of Perspectivism is invoked, then evidence becomes meaningless.  If three people can look at dog and one sees a cat, the other a bird and the last a fish, then compromise is impossible.  But if all three agree to common rules of interpretation, then compromise is possible.

 

Compromise requires movement away from solipsistic individualism and towards collectivism.

 

And I see no indication of any such compromise from you, Pantheory.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I was making a valid comparison between Trump's accusations of widespread electoral fraud and Pantheory's accusations of widespread Groupthink in mainstream science.  Pantheory selectively cut out the comparison I was making, totally changing the thrust of my argument and diluting its effect.  The comparison is relevant and timely.  I made it because the ongoing controversy in the US about electoral fraud will be decided in the courts on the basis of just one thing; evidence.  

 

But Pantheory has presented no substantial evidence for widespread Groupthink in mainstream science.  Like certain Republicans he has been long on allegations and short on actual evidence.  Long on beliefs and opinions, but short on anything else of substance.  

 

In this forum the bottom line isn't belief or opinion, but evidence.  That's because we Ex-Christians are sceptical of any and all claims until we see the shape of the evidence.  When we see no persuasive evidence, we are not persuaded.  I have seen Pantheory present NO persuasive evidence of widespread, systemic and damaging Groupthink in mainstream science.  Therefore, I remain sceptical of his claims and do not share in his beliefs or his opinions.

 

For the record, I don't care if Pantheory misquoted me accidentally or deliberately.  What I do care about is that my words and my argument were misrepresented by him.  I've now put that right.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

The US election doesn't seem like a good comparison. That's why I didn't include that quote. Trump is not claiming ballot fraud in general. He is asking for a recount in a couple of states where the margin of victory has been less than 1/2 percent. A change in the victor for that state would not change the election results.  But Trump said that if Biden does not do well or stubs his toe in the next 3 years, Trump will consider running again in 2024.  So if the recount changes to a Trump victory in at least one more state, he will have more bragging rights for 2024.

 

Groupthink, on the other hand, is not a conspiracy theory or intended fraud. For the most part it is sociological phenomena having generally good intentions, that sometimes results in wrong conclusions for reasons unknown to the mainstream. IMO Groupthink will never be studied beyond a cursory evaluation in science until an obvious catastrophe of theory is realized after a number of years of contradictory evidence. Negative evidence against a theory often is misinterpreted, so it may take years to realize a major failure.

 

Cosmological theories and hypotheses in general are difficult to disprove but strong evidence against them might be found. Maybe five years after the James Webb space telescope and the Atacama long baseline array are fully functioning, expected to be about 2025, it will be announced that they will have found at the farthest observable distances some old, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicity in accord with predictions of cosmological models of an older or infinite-age universe. This would be strong evidence that the universe is much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong as to the age of the universe.

 

Presently they are observing many large mature looking galaxies at the farthest distances. IMO this trend will certainly continue at ever greater distances until the James Webb is properly placed and running. Its observations will brake the back of the Big Bang model in that it will become obvious that the universe is much older. This by itself will not be the end of the BB theory since by changing Inflation theory they can come up with a much older universe. But if and when this happens others will be questioning the rest of the BB theory. Before then I expect to see more confounding problems with the dark matter and dark energy hypotheses.

 

 

[pantheory]

Discover / Quartz 2016

Philosophers want to know why physicists believe theories they can’t prove

"It’s often assumed that physics and philosophy are at opposite ends of the academic spectrum. In fact, they’re close—so close that they can overlap, with professors sometimes switching between the two fields as they work to advance our understanding of highly abstract subjects in theoretical physics.

One such professor is Richard Dawid, a philosophy of science researcher at Ludwig Maximilian Universität Munich, who has a PhD in theoretical physics and began his career researching particle physics. He transitioned to philosophy, he tells Quartz, to investigate how physicists can come to believe in certain theories without necessarily having the empirical evidence that proves them.

The criteria for establishing a theory, he discovered, is not in itself subject to scientific inquiry. “They’re considered background assumptions,” says Dawid. “It’s a question that’s driven by physics but it’s a philosophical question.” "

https://qz.com/590406/philosophers-want-to-know-why-physicists-believe-theories-they-cant-prove/

--------------------------------------------

Scientific American 2019

Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

My comparison between the voter fraud and Groupthink is valid because the truth of both issues will be decided by the one thing.

 

Evidence.

 

If you want to make a case for Groupthink ruining science then you have to present one thing.

 

Evidence.

 

If you want to make a case for the failure of Big Bang cosmology then you have to present one thing.

 

Evidence.

 

You even say as much yourself, citing evidence as being the deciding factor in a change of cosmological theory.

 

"Negative evidence against a theory often is misinterpreted, so it may take years to realize a major failure.

Cosmological theories and hypotheses in general are difficult to disprove but strong evidence against them might be found."

 

You can't disallow me from making a stand on the evidence and then use the same thing in your argument.

 

So, my comparison between electoral fraud and Groupthink in science (which you misquoted) stands.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

There is so much evidence against the Big Bang model that IMO anyone interested should be familiar with it. This is not just a small list, but almost an entire book of contradictory evidence.  Because of Groupthink IMO few in the mainstream talk about it except for researchers about their own studies.

"Yet this distant cluster appears to be full of old galaxies," discovery team member Adam Stanford noted with amazement.

https://www.space.com/2470-maturity-farthest-galaxy-cluster-surprises-astronomers.html

[WalterP]

Hello Pantheory.

 

You know that I recently discovered that one of your cited links about Groupthink came from a Christian Intelligent Design website?

 

 

Well, I'm sorry to say that the American International Journal of Contemporary Research, which you linked to today, is blacklisted as a 'possibly predatory journal'.  https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

Please copy and paste these links for more information

 

https://predatoryjournals.com/about/

https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/

 

Your own Pantheory website's Technical Papers link also refers to the AIJCR.   https://www.pantheory.org/Technical-Papers.pdf

The AIJCR is part of the Center for Promoting Ideas (CPI), the legitimacy of which is called into question on this blog.

 

https://flakyj.blogspot.com/2016/12/center-for-promoting-ideas-cpi.html

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it would be a good move to cut your ties to this organization and get your work published by a reputable science institution like Nature or Arxiv?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[disillusioned]

I don't understand the point of this. 

 

Yes, the are problems in physics. Every physicist I've ever met, read, studied under, worked with, or heard speak acknowledges this. That's why they keep doing physics.

 

None of the models is complete,  or without problems. Everyone knows this. Yes, sometimes errors due to groupthink occur. But in general, I hardly think it's a major issue.

[WalterP]

Oops! 

 

 

Checking a little further Pantheory, it looks as if the Canadian Center of Science and Education (CCSE) is also suspicious.  

 

http://www.ccsenet.org/

 

You published a paper with them.

 

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463

 

But, according to this blog... 

 

http://flakyj.blogspot.com/2016/12/canadian-center-of-science-and.html

 

...the CCSE is listed as a "potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers."

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Note to self: delete your Answers In Genesis account before arguing with Walt.

[LogicalFallacy]

23 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Note to self: delete your Answers In Genesis account before arguing with Walt.

 

Like BAA he will will find you and hunt you down and rectify any errors you make with meticulous methodical precision.

[pantheory]

On 11/14/2020 at 2:18 AM, disillusioned said:

I don't understand the point of this. 

 

Yes, the are problems in physics. Every physicist I've ever met, read, studied under, worked with, or heard speak acknowledges this. That's why they keep doing physics.

 

None of the models is complete,  or without problems. Everyone knows this. Yes, sometimes errors due to groupthink occur. But in general, I hardly think it's a major issue.

 

Nearly all agree there are problems, but nearly none in the mainstream believe that almost every aspect of modern physics professes wrong theory, every field of study. With that assumption the only explanation of it in my opinion could be that there is something wrong with the way science is actually practiced and if so, it would seem that it all boils down to Groupthink theory and what it does to dissenters of theory and related interpretations. So the difference that I am expressing is nearly the opposite of what most scientists in these fields believe.

 

IMO hardly any scientists believe the negative effects of Grouphthink has perverted their field of study. I would guess that a large portion of scientists only vaguely know the meaning of Groupthink.  But that itself could be a major problem if Groupthink is a big problem in modern physics. All I have personally are my small experiences but also have talked with mainstream astronomers who also believe that for astronomy, Groupthink has been a back breaker. One of my internet associates is Martin Lopez Corredoira. He is an astronomer that writes papers in astronomy and cosmology. He has 2 Phd's, one in astronomy and the other in philosophy. He works at the large telescope in Tenerife Spain. He is an active astronomer and has published dozens of papers relating to astronomy. I talked to him online, and my interpretation of his opinions is that science in general, but specifically cosmology, is about as 'F'd up as is possible. He wrote the book entitled Twilight of the Scientific Age, expressing that in astronomy/ cosmology almost everything is wrong concerning theory. The meaning of the word Twilight here is "the beginning of the end;"  "the terminal period after full development, success;" "a state of uncertainty, vagueness, or gloom." Here is a link to his book which I and others reviewed for him on Amazon at his request. 

 

 

 

I also have talked with other astronomers like Halton Arp who had a similar opinion. The general idea of it is that cosmology is so wrong that there may be no foreseeable end to astronomers misinterpreting almost every observation. I am a little more optimistic than Dr. Lopez but he and other insiders find less humor in the total mistakes of nearly all of mainstream theory in cosmology.  Here 'twilight" means the end of almost  (astronomy/ cosmology) anything of value in modern physics. 

 

https://www.science20.com/profile/martin_lopez_corredoira

 

His book and similar books by others reflect his concern for modern physics in that a major part of it is merely fantasy, which is also my opinion. Of course when we talk we discuss details of mainstream misinterpretations.

 

As we have agreed before that none of present theories in these fields are complete, but as you correctly understood me, that IMO they haven't even got started concerning a real understanding of any  part of modern physics and its simplicity that can be understood by nearly anyone interested. Famous quotes along these lines go like this:

 

"An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid."

"if you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it's probably no damn good."

"If you can't explain your physics to a bartender, then you probably don't understand it yourself."

"A man's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."

 

Ernest Rutherford

 

"An alleged scientific discovery can have no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid."

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid."

 

Albert Einstein

 

In science, barmaid physics, aka "barmaid explanations", refers to the oft-cited premise that, in physics, one doesn’t fully understand a phenomena, theory, concept, principle, or law, etc., completely, until one can explain it to a barmaid or child, e.g. in simple words, or on a cocktail napkin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

10 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Like BAA he will will find you and hunt you down and rectify any errors you make with meticulous methodical precision.

 

Thank you for the comparison, Logical Fallacy.  I'm flattered.  

 

 

However, in this case Pantheory may well be a victim of a scam and not the villain of the piece.

 

He may have subscribed to these suspicious sites and submitted his science papers to them in good faith.

 

But, the fallout still brings his work into doubt and into question.

 

Which is why I suggested to him that he get his work published by a reputable organization, rather than a suspicious one.

 

Pantheory's work would then have the seal of credibility upon it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[Myrkhoos]

1. The metaphor of the barmaid shoukd be taken as, well, a metaphor. It was not intented as a real test for a theory. I think its thrust is a good instinct towards simplicity and communicability, as I could see the temptations of complications and hermeticism in the fields of maths and physics.

2. Is science affected by the humanity of the scientists? Of course. But it does have one of the best if not the best bias detection systems of every other human field. 

3. I just watched some youtube videos and even I know there are tens if not hundreds of competing hypothesis in science, with some thinking they are one that get it right and the others wrong.

  

PS Trump is actually alleging widespread election fraud, not just recounting.