| Science is a method measuring nature, not all of nature. Besides, if it's not real just due to being man-made then humanity must not exist, either... |
 |
GenesisAria said: Open-Dice said: The fundermental flaw in Science is that it operates on circular logic. Science determines what is true! We know this because Science says so! j0x said: more like science determines what is true! we know this because the scientific method says so TheBrainintheJar said: Well, so far, has there ever been a reason to doubt that the scientific method doesn't work? Rinar said: Science is not a religion or something, it's the art of , observing, discovering and learning. Wouldn't say it's exactly man-made since animals do show some signs, even if humans do it better. You guys are having an identification issue here. The scientific method is a tool developed in ancient times by people who used retroductive reasoning to create it. The method itself is sound, and it relies on necessity while rejecting sufficiency. Sufficiency isn't good enough. The problem is when, as a majority of the scientific establishment today, fails to live up to the method. Most of the scientific stuff you read in the news is not scientific in the slightest, but dogmatic and biased journalism, back by the camp of science that is constricted by the fallacy known as peer review and consensus theories -- which is indeed circular logic riddled with reification, converse error, and sharpshooter fallacy. There's nothing wrong with science itself, there's just a lot wrong with the people who claim to be doing it but aren't. Funny you say journalism. Journalism ISN'T science. Even the words for what journalists do and what scientists do are different (At least in Hebrew). Journalism is a very basic and crude version of the scientific method. What's fallacious about peer review? Can you elaborate why the method doesn't work? The fact people misuse it is irrelevant. Any idea can be used badly and against its own purpose. j0x said: TheBrainintheJar said: Well, so far, has there ever been a reason to doubt that the scientific method doesn't work? i got no idea, but im sure the scientific method is not perfect too but its still the best method humanity have to understand nature/universe and use the acquired knowledge on those to create technologies Science is about what works. If a method works, we'll keep using it until we'll find something better. That's what we do with theories, too. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
ShadowMikoto said: The same could be said about Math formulas. Who the fuck says Math has to be reasoned the way it is formulated? I'm not saying that you just go around making up your own Math formulas or anything goes when problem solving. I realize problems have a set way of being solved. But who made up Math and said ... this is the way Math must be solved? It's set in stone, just like religion, science, and everything else is in this world. Man created it, and in order to follow the mold, you have to learn it exactly the same way. Convenience says that Math should be done the way it is normally done. You may have figured out Riemann hypothesis but if you didn't do it in the language (yes, Math is a language) that other Mathematicians would understand, no one would know what you've solved or even that a problem has been solved. Besides, it seems your concept of Math itself is quite erroneous. Zeando gave part of the answer, so here I'll give you the other half: Math is, first of all, a language. And like all languages, it can either be used to relay facts of reality or talk of things totally abstract and imaginary. But mind you, Math in itself is not a language, it's only a 'form' of a language. What it means is that Math can be written in any way. Ancient Babylonians, for an instance, had their own way of writing mathematical symbols and performing basic arithmetic. Egyptians used figures of daily objects or animals to denote numbers. If you pick up an ancient Mathematics textbook, not only the numbers will be different but also formulas and operations will be different too. But ultimately, they all refer to the same thing. If, in common language, I ask you 'where's the trash can?' then the only correct answer is 'There!'. It doesn't matter in which language you give me the answer. As long as you point me to the trash can, you've answered correctly. Anyways, what OP is saying about science cannot be said about Math. Math deals with its own constructions, and this is the magic of math that even with its ideality, it has innumerable applications in the real world. Maybe only the natural numbers in math arose out of nature but everything else was man-made. And the surprising thing is that the more man-made a math is, the more uses it has. |
TheBrainintheJar said: No it's not even remotely scientific. This is what we call "popular science" and it's literally an entertainment industry. It's goal is money, it doesn't give a rat's ass about the truth.Funny you say journalism. Journalism ISN'T science. Even the words for what journalists do and what scientists do are different (At least in Hebrew). Journalism is a very basic and crude version of the scientific method. What's fallacious about peer review? Can you elaborate why the method doesn't work? The fact people misuse it is irrelevant. Any idea can be used badly and against its own purpose. Many sociological reasons. It begets elitism and perpetuates circle jerking and patchworking existing models instead of reevaluating the consensus. People favour theories that are in agreement with their meager understanding, and that which lets them be one of the group. If you fit in, you can get recognized, if you get recognized, you can get funding and thus pay the bills.j0x said: Science is about what works. If a method works, we'll keep using it until we'll find something better. That's what we do with theories, too.[/quote]There is nothing better than strictly cohering to the denotation of the scientific method. Why? Because it was formed by retroduction, it is directly in accordance with the causality of nature. Note that science is philosophy. As always, the imperfection is in the human interpretation, not the science itself.TheBrainintheJar said: i got no idea, but im sure the scientific method is not perfect too but its still the best method humanity have to understand nature/universe and use the acquired knowledge on those to create technologiesWell, so far, has there ever been a reason to doubt that the scientific method doesn't work? |
❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
khunter said: Typical response from a cis white male. What are you alt right as well?OP, can I fuck your hole? Don't worry, social sciences doesn't exist either so it won't be gay. Nothing is real. Technology comes from plants and plants come from zetsu, the lord and savior of all plants |
 |
| Indeed, it's folly for scientists as well as skeptics to just take religion and the concept of spirituality and simply deny that it has any real effect upon a physical, observable world. But I don't understand why you're arguing that nature isn't real? The existence of nature, too, is tangible. Such contempt for the body is just as dangerous as the denial of the spirit. |
Dunois said: Well obviously you won't ask someone who knows nothing about a subject, expecting them to have a certain or greater knowledge of it. You're supposed to have people less familiar with the specialized subject to give rational insight and fresh perspective on that which you're working on. Because they will have a field of view different than yours. Especially when working in physics: no single theory is allowed contradict another, so it doesn't matter if you're in micro, macro, natural, artificial, it all has to work under the same rules. Technically all of science comes back to physics, so all science has to be unified and ananke. I'll go on and on like a broken record: to find truth and be able to recognize it as such, retroduction is necessary.What alternative to peer-review would you propose? Elitism isn't a consequence of the process but a side effect of a limited number of peers within the field of interest. You wouldn't ask your grandmother who knows nothing about cars (despite trusting her) to check if your carburetor is working, would you? And I think you underestimate what it'd take to challenge a consensus - sometimes it'd be impossible since the perspective required to challenge a consensus' need not be one that's available to humankind at all. Besides a consensus is agreement upon something. In your statement, you're referring to a consensus in isolation. A consensus upon what? Generally speaking though, any consensus on any topic is simply the result of well-defined extrapolation based on well-defined information, and this is automatically challenged when the situation so arises simply because of the fact that the consensus view would be inadequate in this situation. Sufficiency is not necessity. All consensus theories are merely sufficient, thus fallacious and likely very inaccurate or deluded.Overall, i don't have any particular solution, other than freeing the information. Just obliterate peer review, discourage consensus, and stop the intellectual fascism (biased education). |
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
GenesisAria said: There is nothing better than strictly cohering to the denotation of the scientific method. Why? Because it was formed by retroduction, it is directly in accordance with the causality of nature. Note that science is philosophy. As always, the imperfection is in the human interpretation, not the science itself.[/quote]TheBrainintheJar said: No it's not even remotely scientific. This is what we call "popular science" and it's literally an entertainment industry. It's goal is money, it doesn't give a rat's ass about the truth.Funny you say journalism. Journalism ISN'T science. Even the words for what journalists do and what scientists do are different (At least in Hebrew). Journalism is a very basic and crude version of the scientific method. What's fallacious about peer review? Can you elaborate why the method doesn't work? The fact people misuse it is irrelevant. Any idea can be used badly and against its own purpose. Many sociological reasons. It begets elitism and perpetuates circle jerking and patchworking existing models instead of reevaluating the consensus. People favour theories that are in agreement with their meager understanding, and that which lets them be one of the group. If you fit in, you can get recognized, if you get recognized, you can get funding and thus pay the bills.j0x said: Science is about what works. If a method works, we'll keep using it until we'll find something better. That's what we do with theories, too.i got no idea, but im sure the scientific method is not perfect too but its still the best method humanity have to understand nature/universe and use the acquired knowledge on those to create technologies Journalism is about finding exciting stories and telling them, hopefully as they occur. it's about telling things that are happening, whereas research is about stuff that happened. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| @TheBrainintheJar On the contrary, journalism is an entertainment business like the news. It's there, sure, to bring information, but it's also there to sell something. They won't tell a story if it won't sell, and they'll bias a story if it'll make it sell more. That's journalism business pride. Ps: you borked your quotes lol. @razor39999 Electromagnetism is just the most common rendition of it. It's not explaining gravity with electromagnetism, it's explaining the cause of gravity as the same thing that causes electromagnetism. Dielectric force as inertia, and the loss of that inertia. It's the universal energy which flows and creates vortices, or whirlwinds, that we define as particles and so on. The most fundamental principle however, is the convection of space and counterspace: longitudinally (out/in) it's gravity, transversely (toroidal, circular) it's electromagnetism. You can't have one without the other, as if that were the case, there would be no dimensionality, and thus we wouldn't exist. Electrical torque (we call it the lorentz force) has long since solved the galaxy rotation problem, making darkmatter a pointless model. |
GenesisAriaDec 9, 2016 9:13 AM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
| @razor39999 It's also actually ironic how many things that the mainstream happens to stumble upon, and yet are always right for the wrong reasons. For example: relativistic time dilation is possible, but you're not "bending space-time" to do it, you're altering the flow rate of energy within a field. It's almost certainly a completely different shape than we thought. The quasar we thought were ancient and monstrous are actually not really any farther than the spiral galaxies they can be correlated with (see Halton Arp on intrinsic redshift); this means that stars we thought were close might not actually be close, and stars/galaxies we thought were super far might not actually be so. This isn't new science either, studies like these are decades old. |
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
1. You didn't answer my question at all. What alternative to a peer-review would you propose? Encourage anyone and everyone to join the conversation, regardless of specialty. Overspecialization is a severe problem currently, and on the verge of resulting in a crisis. People bolstering their own ideas and causing cults to form around them, science starts to reek of superstition ("theory A is correct because theory A says so").If the science goes down, so does the economy and society. Without an influx of new wisdom and invention, it will stagnate as it is presently. Same pattern exists in all civilizations: rise with science and wisdom, loss of that wisdom and science, fall into superstition and conflict, fall of the civilization. If we were to, let's say, get invaded by an alien military suddenly today (pretending their arsenal is no much better than ours), humanity as a whole is in a state in which we could very well be wiped out and degraded to what you'd call "primitives", because we're in a position of weakness (like the Inca). We need to get our shit together, or we could fall regardless of an attacker. Rampant stupidity is not a good sign. In the past, if a civilization went down, there was another elsewhere that was flourishing. We're at a tipping point today, where we're all more or less of one global civilization. If we go down, we ALL go down, and we go down hard. That said, if we get past this, then all the troubles of thousands of years of history will be no more. The unified field will solve our problems. 2. I'm sorry, but I'd disagree. You're talking in circles - you're using the definition of a theory to argue that they are constructs which inherently contain the necessary information and capacity to become invalid under the right circumstances - that is literally what theories are. And I don't get it, what do you mean by 'Sufficiency is not necessity'? The only way to know a truth about a system, is via the only way it can work in it's entirety. Your margin for error must be infinitesimal and non existent. If you have any measurable tolerance to error, then you have ignorance, due to lacking information (this is probability in a nutshell), and are creating merely sufficient theories to approximately solve technical problems. Even if the error is so small you can't see it, that doesn't make it necessitative and accurate. We can land a probe on a comet with gold old Newtonian mechanics, that's sufficient, however Newton was wrong (not spiritually wrong, just not accurate enough).And what do you mean by 'freeing the information'? In what way is this loosely defined information locked down now? Consensus is discouraged already. Despite the sociological motives you raised, I think that one of the pillars of the notion of science happens to be the need to challenge the consensus. Science is knowing, and not the nurturing of a dogma; that's more in religion's domain, I think. :) I don't know where you're looking, but consensus challenges have been opposed since forever. You challenge the norms and you get booted out. Especially if you study in electrical theory. A stereotypical example is Halton Arp, who showed significant evidence for patterns indicating additional factors affecting blue/red shift in galaxies and quasars... He was literally shut out and denied further telescope time because the observatories thought he was nuts. Thou shalt not question the least supported yet used theories. "Einstein was right about everything." "Einstein is always right." Challenge Hubble's law and you get a shoe up the ass. Big Bang is a completely false model with virtually nothing supporting it, yet they teach that shit religiously.And what is this intellectual fascism you're referring to here? Education today is biased towards what exactly? Biased to whatever subjects preferred. For example, they still teach you about particles in school, but technically particles were deemed obsolete even by QM decades ago. They teach certain things, and demonstrate distaste for others. You never see curriculums showing multiple models and addressing the pros and cons of various models. Especially when it comes to physics and astrophysics, they just teach it as if it's just the way it is and it's the facts. Whatever the administration determines is required in curriculum, is what gets shoved down your throat and made required dogmatic regurgitation in order to pass. |
GenesisAriaDec 9, 2016 4:39 PM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
| @NudeBear Very astute. We yet still have flawed methodology though. You can't improve the methodology without understanding what aspects of other methodologies worked. We're hitting the limits of the mathematical methodology as well. As the math is meaningless without the qualitative study that was done pre-mathematics. You can predict, but you have to be sure you're using the correct formula for the specific problem. Many can seem similar without being accurate or seeming wrong. “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” –Nikola Tesla |
GenesisAriaDec 9, 2016 6:06 PM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
Jixte said: mochakawaiibear said: What? So that same can be said for religion then. religion is stuck like a book. Science isnt a choice of belief its a development of knowledge, its open to constant and thorough change. As I type this science is changing, papers are being peer reviewed, models and theories questioned and disproved. Everything said in science needs to be proven, with evidence, with logic, with numbers, with intelligence, its not an opinion. If you dont 'believe' something in science and you can firmly prove otherwise then the science can change. I think whats trying to be said is that its our way of understanding the world. Maths and physics underlie science and hence there's biology and chemistry too. You can say in essence its understanding how nature works but its not a religion. Science underlies all the technology, your medicine, your mortality and almost everything in your life. You say nature just gave us everything and you put it together but its science that pushed forward that 'putting together' like your computer would never come about naturally, you shouldnt take everything science has brought you for granted or undermine the constant work of scientists across the world. Actually, if you can't disproof a theory it counts as proofed, not sure which criterias are mandatory tho. NINJAEDIT: OP is either trolling or mentally challenged. |
GenesisAria said: @TheBrainintheJar On the contrary, journalism is an entertainment business like the news. It's there, sure, to bring information, but it's also there to sell something. They won't tell a story if it won't sell, and they'll bias a story if it'll make it sell more. That's journalism business pride. Ps: you borked your quotes lol. @razor39999 Electromagnetism is just the most common rendition of it. It's not explaining gravity with electromagnetism, it's explaining the cause of gravity as the same thing that causes electromagnetism. Dielectric force as inertia, and the loss of that inertia. It's the universal energy which flows and creates vortices, or whirlwinds, that we define as particles and so on. The most fundamental principle however, is the convection of space and counterspace: longitudinally (out/in) it's gravity, transversely (toroidal, circular) it's electromagnetism. You can't have one without the other, as if that were the case, there would be no dimensionality, and thus we wouldn't exist. Electrical torque (we call it the lorentz force) has long since solved the galaxy rotation problem, making darkmatter a pointless model. That's the big dilemma of journalism. Accuracy is important, but telling an exciting story that'll grab the viewer is just as important. I'm planning on trying to get into journalism. I wonder how I'll handle it. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| @razor39999 Flat earth peeps are idiots, because they fail to comprehend what it means to be flat. "Flat" cannot exist without first a radial existence to give a relative point in which you can draw a line from radial points (vectors). To make a flat surface, you'd have to arbitrarily pick a starting point, then draw a finite line - which makes no sense. Who decides where the corner starts, god? Technically it's more or less "flat" relative to the core, because it's more or less even in radius in whatever direction you face. All the stuff about eyes and cameras causing lens aberrations which distort reality and apply curvature to it are interesting, but ultimately fruitless. Because, see, technically depending on how your eyes were made, you could even see the earth as concave. It doesn't change any of the physics or behaviours, and is only a semantic argument of perception. The best source for æther/field theory (although far from perfect) is Ken Wheeler's book: https://archive.org/download/magnetism1small/magnetism1small.pdf Many other people are working on very similar stuff. --Back in the day, there was another type of "material æther" which was disproven (ironically, it was a lot like WIMPs), and that's what people like Wal Thornhill use in the Thunderbolts project, however that makes him incorrect. --The correct interpretation of the ætherium is a somewhat difficult to grasp system of complete incommensurate relativity. You're not even allowed to use arbitrary mathematical units, you are only allowed to use one arbitrary unit and that is 1 unit of the field/magnitude that you arbitrarily select, and then measuring other fields and forces relative to the chosen one. You always start with 1, not some numeric value based on an arbitrary unit like Gauss. --All values are created by relative interaction of fields. There is no straight line without fields to vector lines from. @TheBrainintheJar Journalism is brutal competition. You'll have to say goodbye to honesty and decency if you want to succeed. Sticking to accuracy/truth will greatly hinder your profitability unfortunately. Depending how you go about it mind you. There is an increasing crowd who thirst for no-bullshit information, but they're still the minority. |
GenesisAriaDec 10, 2016 8:01 AM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
GenesisAria said: @razor39999 Flat earth peeps are idiots, because they fail to comprehend what it means to be flat. "Flat" cannot exist without first a radial existence to give a relative point in which you can draw a line from radial points (vectors). To make a flat surface, you'd have to arbitrarily pick a starting point, then draw a finite line - which makes no sense. Who decides where the corner starts, god? Technically it's more or less "flat" relative to the core, because it's more or less even in radius in whatever direction you face. All the stuff about eyes and cameras causing lens aberrations which distort reality and apply curvature to it are interesting, but ultimately fruitless. Because, see, technically depending on how your eyes were made, you could even see the earth as concave. It doesn't change any of the physics or behaviours, and is only a semantic argument of perception. The best source for æther/field theory (although far from perfect) is Ken Wheeler's book: https://archive.org/download/magnetism1small/magnetism1small.pdf Many other people are working on very similar stuff. --Back in the day, there was another type of "material æther" which was disproven (ironically, it was a lot like WIMPs), and that's what people like Wal Thornhill use in the Thunderbolts project, however that makes him incorrect. --The correct interpretation of the ætherium is a somewhat difficult to grasp system of complete incommensurate relativity. You're not even allowed to use arbitrary mathematical units, you are only allowed to use one arbitrary unit and that is 1 unit of the field/magnitude that you arbitrarily select, and then measuring other fields and forces relative to the chosen one. You always start with 1, not some numeric value based on an arbitrary unit like Gauss. --All values are created by relative interaction of fields. There is no straight line without fields to vector lines from. @TheBrainintheJar Journalism is brutal competition. You'll have to say goodbye to honesty and decency if you want to succeed. Sticking to accuracy/truth will greatly hinder your profitability unfortunately. Depending how you go about it mind you. There is an increasing crowd who thirst for no-bullshit information, but they're still the minority. Hopefully, I'll find enough shocking no-bullshit information to get me by. Israel is burning with shit anyway. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| You're right. We don't really know anything. The air you're breathing right now could be toxic for all we know. Better stop breathing just in case. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
Dunois said: On thie contrary, knowledge is not increasing, it's ever spiralling down into convolution. You can understand things on a more general macro scale, which is very practical and much more realistic to process, or you can obsess over details and realize that there's an endless asymptotic abyss of finer detail. Information isn't increasing, as pretty much every major scientific discovery relevant to today was discovered back around the turn of the century and up until the conclusion of WW2. If you do some research on the history of scientific subjects, you'll even find that things like cloning are as old as that. We aren't advancing anymore despite the sensational headlines that make it seem like they are. All we're doing is ever elaborating on existing technology, and making it more complicated. There's a reason why we still haven't bested the chemical battery cell. Nobody's inventing anything and we're stuck in a stagnation where all anybody can do is fiddle with what we have.I think what you refer to as "over-specialization" is a direct consequence of the exponential increase in humanity's collective knowledge, I don't think we're going to be able to solve that effectively by encouraging people to "join the conversation" (which I think people are open to do already). If I may ask, what field do you work in? I've never heard about this cult-mentality in science before. Is there anywhere I can read up on this? Sounds quite interesting. I'm an independent researcher of the unified field. I agree with the tipping point issue you raised though. I think we're also at that point sociologically where the burden of our collective knowledge has far outscaled with the average citizen on the street can cope with Again, it's not information excess, it's information noise; too much convolution and clutter. In layman's terms, there's too much bullshit, not enough useful information.[quot]But you are always going to have error in understanding whatever it is you're examining because your measurement represents a single perspective which is incapable of accounting for the totality of the observed system's existence. Our theories are always only going to be approximations because they're a consequence of our perspective (how we interact and observe with whatever is around us), and thus will always be limited. And besides, accounting for the unknown using error parameters is pretty much all we can do to improve the accuracy of our theories, right? I don't see what else there is that can be done to arrive at a theoretical standpoint that would be universal-yet-independent. There is always going to be something that is unknown, right?[/quote]Not when it's incommensurate. The universe we live in is incommensurable, it's a structure of fractal self-similarity that has parallel behaviours at all magnitudes. Simply put: it's a communication gap. Person A talks about quarks and leptons, person B talks about field vectors, person C talks about electrical charge exchange. If you want a universal language, it's speaking the same language that all of the universe speaks - the expression of inertia and the loss of inertia: 1/Φ^-3. You can derive literally anything and everything from the expression of Φ(phi). The nature only has 2 tricks: binary division, and phi vectoring (and fibonacci which is kinda half way between). I would beg to disagree. I don't know anything about the topics you mentioned, so I can't talk about dogmatic notions w.r.t. those subjects, but I think the fact that you and I are discussing this at all serves as proof that "freedom of information" is a real thing already (although perhaps constrained in some ways). I don't see why a challenge to the consensus being challenged itself is a bad thing either - Isn't your reasoning for challenging the consensus all about not letting information becoming dogma to begin with? Freedom of information acts do exist because they've been demanded upon the government, it's why old classified documents on Tesla were released by the FBI in recent years. I wasn't referring to institutional restriction of information, but public constraint due to inherent bias.This isn't the same as what, I guess, you could call scientific intertia - the inability of a scientific field to accept and change with incoming information and evidence. This would normally lead to that field falling out of favor, and eventually being regarded as pseudoscience (alchemy for instance). To be frank, it means that your theory was shit. If it's inflexible, or has to be modified, then it is inherently false. The truest models that actually represent reality will not need to change as they will be eternally correct without any modification. That is what is being realized, right now. Our world has been stagnated for decades, and finally some people are on the verge of completing the real unified field theory, at least to a level of cohesion that it's foundation is indestructible.That aside, I'm curious about your statement regarding the Big Bang. Would you care to elaborate further? Redshift is an unproven hypothesis. People bow to Hubble's law calling it a law, when there's no experimental basis to support it: it's a sharpshooter fallacy. Without redshift constant, all the things we thought weer far, may not be so far away. This includes the cosmic microwave background, which many researchers have noticed actually has it's noise patterns align with cosmic foreground, making it a microwave foreground. Immediately you've shattered any idea of things expanding, thus also shattering the idea of reversing it to find a point in time which is called the "big bang". Halton Arp showed a lot of incredible consistencies of quasars being situated axially from spiral galaxies, and how their redshift values sequentially decreased as they got farther away from the spiral galaxies - they became less red. Nobody talks about that shit, even though it's incredibly imporstand, because they don't like it. People fear what they don't know, so they stick to what is familiar and what they feel certain about. every day they talk about how our theories are flaling apart, yet all resist actually tossing their broken theories into the trash where they belong.Ps: the "big bang" is actually a name originally coined in mockery. But for the eventualities schools prepare students for, the particle interpration of physics is sufficient. Why teach people stuff that they can't understand without the sufficient mathematical background? Because particles makes it harder to understand, less accurate to reality, and more convoluted. People are always going on about the pains of studying physics, when they're even cool with calculus and chemistry. Why's it painful? Because it's bullshit.I do agree that school curriculums do not go about education the way it is supposed to (as is clearly evidenced by how the terms 'theory' and 'model' are usually misinterpreted), but I don't think education can become any more rigorous than what it is now unless you wish to accept the penalty of over-specialized education (instead of our half-boiled "holistic") education being imparted to school kids. And I think this over-specialization is the very think you railed against in your reply to my comment above. How would you make this consistent across the board? Well the whole education method is flawed. From top to bottom. Absolutely nothing about it is right. Ripping apart and analyzing every last detail about it seeking merits, there are none. Everything from the information being taught as dictated by the board, to the way individuals teach, to the mere fact that you'r sitting there listening to some know-it-all yap their face off for hours, to the fact that it's a big bloody staircase. You have to jump through the hoops, and in order. That's now how learning works.The amount of things i've learned in the past few years of my life, due to independent study, investigating on my own time in subjects of interest, i've learned more than in my entire life, and i can converse at the level of debt-growing university students or even graduates. Not being shackled to biases on what answers aught to be, i can pursue the real truth without all this crap confusing the matter, and given the space to run a controlled experiment on myself as well, where i can assess the level of my own bias to gain perspective of how i'm progressing towards truth. That's how everyone needs to learn. I don't expect people to learn retroduction, because that's an extremely advanced art of reasoning which i don't even know if everyone is capable of... But anyone can learn to actively apply abductive reasoning, in which they can look ahead, form their own hypotheses, and measure the accuracy of numerous hypotheses in conjunction. People can't be taught wisdom, they have to find it, and they cannot be found it on a conveyor belt, they need to do it with space to think. As far as job qualification, which is the whole reason the system exists in the first place: they favour people who payed big and worked hard for a certification which one system awards according to their own criteria, for another to see. Whether or not you have a paper is irrelevant, whether you're qualified is relevant. What there needs to be is admission tests for knowledge and learning/adaptability. Even today there's all kinds of complaints about how all of these "educated" people are so unqualified. Highschool graduates can't even flip burgers, people coming out of colleges/universities being insufficient for high end jobs. It's a mess. Edit: I just thought of a perfect example of problematic convoluted thinking. Microprocessors. We're reaching the limits of what we can do with silicon microprocessors. It's an asymptotic curve in which there's less and less improvements we can make because of physics. We're at the point where the electricity travelling through the microscopic circuitry in a processor is starting to induct between circuits and causing errors. They equate it to quantum tunnelling (and that's a big convoluted subject), but what's happening is that there's too much power load for too small of area, and it's "leaking" between circuits. There's not enough electrical resistance between the circuit conductors. The quantum guys will talk about tunnelling and apply all kinds of probabilistic nonsense math to it and talk about particles randomly popping through at a % rate, when in reality, it's just a lessened opacity of energy. The obsession with turning everything into particle quantities will ultimately result in conceptual failure. |
GenesisAriaDec 10, 2016 6:53 PM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
razor39999 said: ^But you live in a country perpetually at war, finding any real stories that won't get through the propaganda embellishment is gonna be hard. Maybe if you become a foreign correspondent. If I could leave this hellhole, abandon Hebrew and forget it all I'd be glad. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| I'll take my chances with science while you can go pray away your late stage cancer when you get it |
| I believe in science. It gives us some sort of a vague idea about ourselves and the world. But I agree that it is not 100% valid. |
   |
More topics from this board
» I'm a coomer, but the important question is...LenRea - 5 hours ago |
3 |
by Zarutaku
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Plushies_Nette_ - 3 hours ago |
0 |
by _Nette_
»»
3 hours ago |
|
Poll: » the future of AI girlfriend technologydeg - 10 hours ago |
18 |
by deg
»»
3 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Do you pay attention to forum signatures?PostMahouShoujo - 6 hours ago |
9 |
by luckyrune
»»
3 hours ago |
|
Poll: » In the future there will be battles for love between species from other planets(theory)Absurdo_N - Yesterday |
10 |
by Dracowyn
»»
3 hours ago |