Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597019 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-08 14:46 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-12-22 09:17 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-08 14:46 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:16 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-08 21:26 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:11 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:43 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-09 02:56 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:07 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 12:19 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 21:02 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 20:28 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 21:19 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:18 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-10 14:42 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 17:59 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 22:57 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:16 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Smokey Abbiati <asbk@atmakb.ai> - 2022-12-11 18:21 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-11 10:40 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 13:44 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Smokey Abbiati <asbk@atmakb.ai> - 2022-12-11 21:37 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 16:07 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-12 00:13 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 16:28 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 13:41 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 23:33 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Stephan Russo <ptrp@susnon.sr> - 2022-12-08 20:58 +0000
Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 18:15 -0600
Re: Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 14:35 +0000
Re: Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 10:59 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Stephan Russo <ptrp@susnon.sr> - 2022-12-08 21:00 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 13:36 -0800
Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:39 -0800
Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 17:47 -0800
Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 17:52 -0800
Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:17 -0800
Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:26 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-10 18:24 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 17:07 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-10 18:41 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-11 22:33 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:15 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 18:43 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-10 13:09 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-10 09:34 -0800
Crank Pat Dolan comes to grips with the facts "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 09:46 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 23:22 +0000
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> - 2023-01-01 10:10 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 03:47 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-02 08:35 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 01:00 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 07:59 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-06 08:18 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 23:36 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-09 08:57 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 00:08 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Luigi Tumicelli <llei@cumiicli.lu> - 2023-01-09 09:04 +0000
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? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-02 11:45 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 08:49 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 09:08 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 09:15 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-03 02:14 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 23:52 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 08:27 +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
Re: Updated crackpot index? Hannu Poropudas <haporopuda@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 23:32 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-21 09:24 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:10 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:25 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:40 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-21 12:51 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Celso Ardizzone <eodo@ceiozi.ci> - 2022-12-21 19:12 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-21 15:07 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 20:18 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-21 12:41 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 21:14 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-21 16:15 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 21:17 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-21 16:14 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 13:10 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-19 09:38 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-21 20:43 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-21 21:52 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-22 09:17 +0100
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-24 01:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <to66d8$21r6r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #598077 |
On 12/23/2022 2:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > considering the standards in your cult. Are you trying for the high score before I even release the crackpot index scoring? Patience, janitor, patience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-23 23:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cef56321-9b7a-4e60-9922-afe0e29e2c91n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598189 |
On Saturday, 24 December 2022 at 07:32:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 12/23/2022 2:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > > considering the standards in your cult. > Are you trying for the high score before I even release the crackpot No. I'm just correcting your wild, baseless claims, which are either results of stupid blind faith or plain lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-24 09:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k0nt6sFsuc3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598076 |
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. >> 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. The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it away from the scientific method. 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. Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the claim, but whether or not this would be real. >> 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. 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. This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge. > The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or > series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots > make but most others would not. "Microbiology is a cult!" for example, > when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the > scientific method. > Before you can use a statement in a 'crackpost list', you need to proove, that the statement is actually wrong. For instance: 'flat Earth' is most likely wrong, hence a good candidate for such a list. But first you need to proove 'flat Earth' wrong. If you cannot prove a statement wrong, it could eventually be true. In such a case, this claim must not be used in a 'crackpot list'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-24 15:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <to7nk3$2c5be$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #598197 |
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. > > 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. > > 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. > > >>> 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. > > 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? > >> The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or >> series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots >> make but most others would not. "Microbiology is a cult!" for example, >> when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the >> scientific method. >> > Before you can use a statement in a 'crackpost list', you need to > proove, that the statement is actually wrong. I am not including proofs. It is up to the user of the list to decide if a crank claim meets the definition of an entry. Did they call a valid science a cult for example. > > For instance: 'flat Earth' is most likely wrong, hence a good candidate > for such a list. But first you need to proove 'flat Earth' wrong. I am not including specific crank beliefs, I want to avoid that. For example for my "crackpot language" I want to have examples but don't want all the examples be relativity specific. I'll need other examples of insults not specific to relativity. I've heard (once) of flat earth believers call others "ball earthers" but how common is that? > > If you cannot prove a statement wrong, it could eventually be true. Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and parading it is what earns crackpot points. > > In such a case, this claim must not be used in a 'crackpot list'. Again, I am not including specific crackpot claims. It is up to the user to look at, for example, a flat earth post, to see how many crank points the poster earns. Go read the original crackpot index.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-24 13:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fc262831-56c5-402c-9c67-2eee5ec64826n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598211 |
On Saturday, 24 December 2022 at 21:32:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > 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!!!") Other fundamentalists deeply believe, that, since it's obvious that what GPS refuted were Newtonian prejudices - ISO second idiocy had to be one of them. > Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and > parading it is what earns crackpot points. Sure, stupid Mike, sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-29 09:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k151p6Ft6cmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598219 |
Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and >> parading it is what earns crackpot points. > > Sure, stupid Mike, sure. > But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria. What we usually have is actually something else: proofs are based on certain axioms, which could actually be also wrong. For instance, I think that 'Growing Earth' is actually true. I wanted to show with a proof of Growing Earth, that matter is not created in the big-bang, but inside planet Earth in real time. But this theory is 'dispoven' by showing, that 'Growing Earth' would violate mass conservation. But I wanted to prove, that 'mass conservation' is actually violated by proving 'Growing Earth'. So, the main problem is the validity of certain axioms. This issue is actually difficult to solve, because axioms are valid by default. Axioms are very similar to religious believes and are usually not subject to debate. (If you dare to do that, you could actually be punished for heresie.) But that would be as unscientific as you could possibly get, because science is based on the concept of free exchange of ideas. If some ideas are excluded and banned, than nothing good could come out of a debate. The 'come out of the debate procedure' would require, to 'sieve' the arguments and sort out anything invalid and proceede from the remainder. But that is difficult, if some axioms cannot be questioned. So: it is very important, that also axioms are subject to verification and sorted out, once that fails. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-29 00:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a2cd0bab-9a6b-4e7a-97f2-a61b95700193n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598515 |
On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > >> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and > >> parading it is what earns crackpot points. > > > > Sure, stupid Mike, sure. > > > But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria. Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself. Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological lie, intended to make science (as institution) more reliable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-30 12:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k17uroFcchmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598517 |
Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >> >>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and >>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points. >>> >>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure. >>> >> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria. > > Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself. > Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological > lie, intended to make science (as institution) more > reliable. > Science is not an organisation. Science is a certain method to find things out. This method is conducted by people, which are often organised into such organisations. Most prominent examples are universities, where professors (and others) conduct some sort or research. These profesors investigate problems of interest by what is called 'scientific method'. If they find something interesting, they publish it in a scientific newspaper (today mainly on the internet). The university itself is not really involved in this process, even if the institution hires and houses professors, because organisations do not conduct scientific research. This is something only an entity with a brain can do, hence people can and organisations can't. Well, that's theory only, because some universities claim, that the scientific discoveries of their professors are theirs. In Germany, where I live, the situation is slightly different to e.g. the USA, because the organisations do not own the results, while in the USA they mainly do. In Germany the professors are therefore more aware of the scientific method, while in the USA they are more aware of the requirements of their employer. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-30 03:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <51b4a858-e9da-4897-bd6c-3dea75a7a2cfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598622 |
On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >> > >>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and > >>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points. > >>> > >>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure. > >>> > >> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria. > > > > Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself. > > Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological > > lie, intended to make science (as institution) more > > reliable. > > > Science is not an organisation. Oh, yes, it is. > Science is a certain method to find things out. > Most prominent examples are universities, where professors (and others) > conduct some sort or research. > > These profesors investigate problems of interest by what is called > 'scientific method'. And christian priests are humble, poor, neighbour-loving. But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms, methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method could never work. Science is doing its job differently. A far, far, far more complicated way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 10:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1d103F5gjfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598626 |
Am 30.12.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>> >>>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and >>>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure. >>>>> >>>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria. >>> >>> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself. >>> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological >>> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more >>> reliable. >>> >> Science is not an organisation. > > Oh, yes, it is. Science is a way to do research and not an organisation. There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science. But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can conduct science. I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any organisation, but conduct science. Well, maybe, on 'science on ant-scale', but that is still science (at least meant to be). >> Science is a certain method to find things out. >> Most prominent examples are universities, where professors (and others) >> conduct some sort or research. >> >> These profesors investigate problems of interest by what is called >> 'scientific method'. > > And christian priests are humble, poor, neighbour-loving. Well, some actually are. > But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms, > methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method > could never work. Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions. > Science is doing its job differently. A far, far, far more > complicated way. > Today science is certainly beyond the reach of common mortals. But this is not a law, but a requirement from the high level, which science has already reached. Cooperation of large numbers of amateurs around the globe would eventually be a possibility. But individuals certainly have next to no chance at all. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 03:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1edad86f-0c3c-495c-b586-84b8a77da9b9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598757 |
On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 10:10:30 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 30.12.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>>> > >>>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and > >>>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure. > >>>>> > >>>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria. > >>> > >>> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself. > >>> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological > >>> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more > >>> reliable. > >>> > >> Science is not an organisation. > > > > Oh, yes, it is. > Science is a way to do research and not an organisation. > > There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science. > > But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can > conduct science. > > I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any > organisation Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a culture? > > But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms, > > methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method > > could never work. > Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions. I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about so called "scientific method". It doesn't work, it never worked, it can't work. If some method making people unfailiable demigods existed - why would only science use it? > Today science is certainly beyond the reach of common mortals. Scientists ARE common mortals. Your belief they're something more (because they have some "scientific method") is a result of science made propaganda bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-02 08:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1ffqvFh2trU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598763 |
Am 01.01.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 10:10:30 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 30.12.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and >>>>>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself. >>>>> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological >>>>> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more >>>>> reliable. >>>>> >>>> Science is not an organisation. >>> >>> Oh, yes, it is. >> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation. >> >> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science. >> >> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can >> conduct science. >> >> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any >> organisation > > Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a > culture? Culture is not an organisation. Think about the meaning of 'culture' as 'set of habits and practises in a certain region'. >>> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms, >>> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method >>> could never work. >> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions. > > I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about > so called "scientific method". It doesn't > work, it never worked, it can't work. > If some method making people unfailiable > demigods existed - why would only science > use it? Well, maybe we should widen the definition of 'scientific method' to what scientists actually do. Usually the philosphical statements of Karl Popper are associated with 'scientific method'. But we could actually widen the view and include other ways to do research, too. >> Today science is certainly beyond the reach of common mortals. > > Scientists ARE common mortals. Your belief > they're something more (because they have > some "scientific method") is a result of science > made propaganda bullshit. > Ok, Ok... I called uneducated people 'common mortals'. They are, of course, not entirely uneducated, but have no knowledge in that particular science. For instance in medicine we have professionals and people, who have little or no knowledge at all. The latter build the group I called 'common mortals'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-02 01:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4065711a-cd73-4ffa-95f7-1330369ea3b7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598857 |
On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 08:36:02 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.01.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 10:10:30 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 30.12.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>> On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and > >>>>>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself. > >>>>> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological > >>>>> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more > >>>>> reliable. > >>>>> > >>>> Science is not an organisation. > >>> > >>> Oh, yes, it is. > >> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation. > >> > >> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science. > >> > >> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can > >> conduct science. > >> > >> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any > >> organisation > > > > Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a > > culture? > Culture is not an organisation. > > Think about the meaning of 'culture' as 'set of habits and practises in > a certain region'. You're underestimating culture and you're underestimating science. > >>> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms, > >>> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method > >>> could never work. > >> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions. > > > > I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about > > so called "scientific method". It doesn't > > work, it never worked, it can't work. > > If some method making people unfailiable > > demigods existed - why would only science > > use it? > Well, maybe we should widen the definition of 'scientific method' to > what scientists actually do. And, as you can see here, it's far, far away from Popper's sugar picture. > For instance in medicine Medicine. A good example. How is Popper's "scientific method" there? What about history? Sociology? Economics? There is NO method. Just like others, scientists think, invent, wave arms, spit at the opponents. They're even dumber and more arrogant than common folk (exceptions happen, but rarely).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-03 07:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1i23gFt7v0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598864 |
Am 02.01.2023 um 10:00 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>>>> Science is not an organisation. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, yes, it is. >>>> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation. >>>> >>>> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science. >>>> >>>> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can >>>> conduct science. >>>> >>>> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any >>>> organisation >>> >>> Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a >>> culture? >> Culture is not an organisation. >> >> Think about the meaning of 'culture' as 'set of habits and practises in >> a certain region'. > > You're underestimating culture and you're > underestimating science. > >>>>> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms, >>>>> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method >>>>> could never work. >>>> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions. >>> >>> I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about >>> so called "scientific method". It doesn't >>> work, it never worked, it can't work. >>> If some method making people unfailiable >>> demigods existed - why would only science >>> use it? >> Well, maybe we should widen the definition of 'scientific method' to >> what scientists actually do. > > And, as you can see here, it's far, far away from > Popper's sugar picture. Well, ok. Popper was a philosopher and painted an ideal picture of science. In the real world most instituitions related to science do not behave according to this ideal. But that is not the fault of Popper. > >> For instance in medicine > > Medicine. A good example. How is Popper's > "scientific method" there? We have two branches, which are both called 'medicine' and of which one is not a science but a business. Let's take the non-profit-part-of-medicine (supposed there is any) and talk about that. 'The-for-profit-part-of-medicine' gets then excluded from science and follows other rules, which are more or less economic. > What about history? Sociology? Economics? > There is NO method. Just like others, scientists > think, invent, wave arms, spit at the opponents. > They're even dumber and more arrogant than > common folk (exceptions happen, but rarely). > 'Scientists' are people, that conduct science. But they are not scientists, just because they wear a white coat. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-06 08:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1q0afFl2fpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598933 |
Am 03.01.2023 um 07:59 schrieb Thomas Heger: > Am 02.01.2023 um 10:00 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>>>> Science is not an organisation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, yes, it is. >>>>> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation. >>>>> >>>>> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct >>>>> science. >>>>> >>>>> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can >>>>> conduct science. >>>>> ... >> What about history? Sociology? Economics? >> There is NO method. Just like others, scientists >> think, invent, wave arms, spit at the opponents. >> They're even dumber and more arrogant than >> common folk (exceptions happen, but rarely). >> > 'Scientists' are people, that conduct science. > > But they are not scientists, just because they wear a white coat. > The confusion stems actually from these white coats! Many academcial researchers wear such coats and that's why these coats are actually a sign, that the person should be regarded as a scientist. But that is, of course, nonsense, because science could be conducted by people wearing any kind of clothing. Also other attributes like e.g a PhD or another academic title are not a sign, that someone is conducting science. Science is defined by topic and method, not by the coat. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-05 23:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e349f3b6-4c11-484c-8ae8-a7b00d8c26a7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598933 |
On Tuesday, 3 January 2023 at 08:00:03 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 02.01.2023 um 10:00 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > >>>>>> Science is not an organisation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Oh, yes, it is. > >>>> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation. > >>>> > >>>> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science. > >>>> > >>>> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can > >>>> conduct science. > >>>> > >>>> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any > >>>> organisation > >>> > >>> Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a > >>> culture? > >> Culture is not an organisation. > >> > >> Think about the meaning of 'culture' as 'set of habits and practises in > >> a certain region'. > > > > You're underestimating culture and you're > > underestimating science. > > > >>>>> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms, > >>>>> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method > >>>>> could never work. > >>>> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions. > >>> > >>> I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about > >>> so called "scientific method". It doesn't > >>> work, it never worked, it can't work. > >>> If some method making people unfailiable > >>> demigods existed - why would only science > >>> use it? > >> Well, maybe we should widen the definition of 'scientific method' to > >> what scientists actually do. > > > > And, as you can see here, it's far, far away from > > Popper's sugar picture. > Well, ok. > > Popper was a philosopher and painted an ideal picture of science. > > In the real world most instituitions related to science do not behave > according to this ideal. > > But that is not the fault of Popper. If a picture intended to reflect the reality doesn't do it - it's the fault of its maker. But if a picture intended to be a sugar propaganda bullshit doesn't reflect the reality - it is not the fault of its maker. The choice is yours. Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper could never work. But science as it really is - can. > > > >> For instance in medicine > > > > Medicine. A good example. How is Popper's > > "scientific method" there? > We have two branches, which are both called 'medicine' and of which one > is not a science but a business. > > Let's take the non-profit-part-of-medicine (supposed there is any) and > talk about that. Let's do it. Experiments? There are. How about numeric predictions? Precise measurements? Falsifications? > > What about history? Sociology? Economics? > > There is NO method. Just like others, scientists > > think, invent, wave arms, spit at the opponents. > > They're even dumber and more arrogant than > > common folk (exceptions happen, but rarely). > > > 'Scientists' are people, that conduct science. Mostly their ranks and positions define them, and partially their subjects. There is no method.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-09 08:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k21vmvFs6omU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #599163 |
Am 06.01.2023 um 08:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> Popper's sugar picture. >> Well, ok. >> >> Popper was a philosopher and painted an ideal picture of science. >> >> In the real world most instituitions related to science do not behave >> according to this ideal. >> >> But that is not the fault of Popper. > > If a picture intended to reflect the reality doesn't > do it - it's the fault of its maker. > But if a picture intended to be a sugar propaganda > bullshit doesn't reflect the reality - it is not the fault > of its maker. > The choice is yours. > Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper > could never work. But science as it really is - can. Popper was a philosopher. These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-09 00:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d08ec31f-18e1-4695-8d4a-9718aef6b441n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #599286 |
On Monday, 9 January 2023 at 08:57:23 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.01.2023 um 08:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > >>> Popper's sugar picture. > >> Well, ok. > >> > >> Popper was a philosopher and painted an ideal picture of science. > >> > >> In the real world most instituitions related to science do not behave > >> according to this ideal. > >> > >> But that is not the fault of Popper. > > > > If a picture intended to reflect the reality doesn't > > do it - it's the fault of its maker. > > But if a picture intended to be a sugar propaganda > > bullshit doesn't reflect the reality - it is not the fault > > of its maker. > > The choice is yours. > > Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper > > could never work. But science as it really is - can. > Popper was a philosopher. > > These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality. Most scientists aren't either. As for Popper - for his "description of science" he only analyzed one example - The Shit. After physicists rejected common sense they needed a theory telling them they're not insane maniacs but true scientists - and Popper gave it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Tumicelli <llei@cumiicli.lu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-09 09:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tpgla3$4tj7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #599286 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper >> could never work. But science as it really is - can. > > Popper was a philosopher. > These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality. here more proof the khazars are nazis. The ADL issues statement declaring Ukraine’s Azov Battalion no longer ‘far-right’ https://www.veteranstoday.com/2023/01/08/the-adl-issues-statement-declaring-ukraines-azov-battalion-no-longer-far-right/ In the November interview, Boneface admitted to taking photographs of Ukrainian fighters “posing with the corpses of a lynched pregnant woman and a man they said was her husband” for a video entitled “Kikes get the rope.” He also claimed to have appeared in a video depicting a botched crucifixion. unbelievable, they kill everybody, including some of them self.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-25 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k0qm96FbcbhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598211 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web