Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #598231
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, sci.math, sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Updated crackpot index? |
| Date | 2022-12-25 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k0qm96FbcbhU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <tnnr2u$1j96$1@dont-email.me> <k0iiqaF4456U1@mid.individual.net> <to3jm6$1lbk6$1@dont-email.me> <k0nt6sFsuc3U1@mid.individual.net> <to7nk3$2c5be$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney: > On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 23.12.2022 um 08:00 schrieb Volney: >>> On 12/22/2022 3:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney: >>>>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index. >>>>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or >>>>> rewrite >>>>> it. For now treat these as additions) >>>> >>>> >>>>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an >>>>> expert are "worshiping" him. >>>>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!" >>>> >>>> >>>> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in, >>>> what you try to find out. >>>> >>>> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as >>>> 'crackpottery'. >>> >>> No, it is the person being scored that considers a certain segment of >>> science as being a religion or cult. This is obviously a conflict >>> because science is based on the scientific method while religions/cults >>> have some sort of faith, that is, something you simply must believe with >>> no observation or evidence of it. That's directly opposed to the >>> scientific method. >> >> Well, the Catholic Church maintains actually universities and produced >> own scientific studies. >> >> In former times the Pope wanted to decide, whether certain theories >> were true or not and quite few lost their lives, who disagreed. >> >> Sure, to kill 'heritics' is directly opposed to the scientific method, >> but was once actual reality. > > The Catholic church has changed, from not accepting science whatsoever > to quite accepting of science. (meanwhile, certain fundamentalists will > respond to an astronomy article stating "Galaxy XYZ is 1 billion light > years away meaning the light we see was emitted 1 billion years ago" > with "WRONG, Earth and the universe was created 6,000 years ago!!!") A > religion can accept and teach science while still having actual faith > beliefs in the religion itself) >> >> >>>> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of >>>> your claim is required. >>> >>> The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a >>> cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine. >> >> The 'crackpots' don't say, that science would be a cult. > > They certainly do! Just read s.p.r. for all the crackpots calling > relativity and those who believe in it a cult, when relativity is a > valid theory under the scientific method, so is a part of science. >> >> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it >> away from the scientific method. > > Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it > still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with > evidence that such a "takeover" happened. I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened. For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number of errors in it (well over 400). These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a world-class physicist. The only possibility is, that this particular article was knowingly published with malicious intentions in a cooperation of at least two people (Planck and Einstein). The other physicist that I totally dislike was Oliver Heaviside (for his obstruction of Quaternions). Another questionable physicists was imho George LeMaitre (because I dislike big-bang theory). Now you only need to assume a hidden connection and a malicious plan and get a perfect 'conspiracy theory'. >> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own >> people. >> >> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish >> heretics anymore. > > Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have > different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the > relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was > no takeover. No. 'Conspiracy theories' are usually not theories about conspiracies, but assumptions about illegal activities of powerfull and secret groups. These assumptions are certainly wrong in most cases, but certainly not in all. Therefore you cannot invalidate an assumption, just because you also may call it 'Conspiracy theory'. Like always: an assumption is valid until proven wrong. After proven wrong the assumption is invalidated. What is not proven wrong, that is still a theory. Therefore 'theory' is a title for the better part of the assumptions. 'Conspiracy' is a crime in the Anglo-American legal system, but not so otherwise. In many countries a somehow similar thing is 'support of a crime'. But the very idea of a conspiracy is often not understood in other countries. Therefore it is a very bad idea to beginn with to call such assumptions 'conspiracy theories', hence this term should not be used in a 'crackpot list'. >> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the >> claim, but whether or not this would be real. > > The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the > scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved, > gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science. Well, science and religion are certainly not the same thing. Religion is based on believe and science also ;-) >> >>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether >>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this >>>> is 'crackpottery'. >>> >>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is >>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this. >> >> >> >> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek >> real truth. > > That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns > them crackpot points. >> >> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the >> lasts truth in the universe. >> >> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe. > > Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature > is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will > be better models one day. Predictions are not a valid goal of science, because you may possibly know the mechanisms of natur, but cannot use this knowledge yourself, because you are not nature. Predictions would require a one to one correspondence between modell and the real world, which only the real world can provide. We can eventually find usuable modell in some cases, which predict things to a sufficant degree, but can never ever get better than that, because we cannot immitate nature precisely enough. IOW: only the universe itself can predict the future of the universe correctly. >> >> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a >> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge. > > What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult > or something? Nothing. I meant something else: even wrong theories are not 'crackpottery', because errors are a necessary part in any research. But the errors should be sorted out as soon as possible. ... TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-18 14:53 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 12:37 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 20:41 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 13:10 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-20 00:35 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-19 21:43 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 16:05 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 13:37 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 14:13 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-22 09:29 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-23 02:00 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 23:21 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 01:32 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 23:15 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-24 09:57 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 15:32 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 13:33 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:34 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 00:48 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:03 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 03:58 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-25 11:17 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-25 14:40 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-26 10:23 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-26 14:10 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-26 12:37 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-27 09:36 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thurman De palma <eaan@phapremr.an> - 2022-12-27 13:57 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-27 23:00 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-28 08:38 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-29 15:25 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Emmet Robustelli <uttl@etlmms.re> - 2022-12-29 21:28 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:41 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 06:12 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 06:23 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 08:27 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:19 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 04:51 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:52 +0100
csiph-web