Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616436 > unrolled thread

Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 14:18 -0700
    Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-31 20:22 -0700
      Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 21:05 -0700
        Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 21:21 -0700
          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 21:30 -0700
            Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:45 -0700
          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-31 21:33 -0700
            Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 23:28 -0700
              Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 23:29 -0700
              Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:30 -0700
                Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-01 07:20 -0700
                  Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 08:50 -0700
                    Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 15:20 -0500
                  Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 08:58 -0700
                    Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-01 09:08 -0700
                      Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:39 -0700
                      Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:44 -0700
                        Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-01 12:01 -0700
                          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 12:33 -0700
                            Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-01 14:54 -0700
                              Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 15:00 -0700
                      Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 11:33 -0700
                    Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 15:22 -0500
                Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 15:24 -0500
    Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-31 20:52 -0700
    Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 13:50 -0700
      Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 15:08 -0700
        Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 18:27 -0500
          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 13:58 -0700
            Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics billv <billv@nowhere.void.net> - 2023-08-02 18:22 -0500
          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 14:02 -0700
            Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics billv <billv@nowhere.void.net> - 2023-08-02 18:38 -0500
          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 14:22 -0700
            Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics billv <billv@nowhere.void.net> - 2023-08-02 19:07 -0500
          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 15:00 -0700
            Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics billv <billv@nowhere.void.net> - 2023-08-02 19:09 -0500
          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 16:55 -0700
          Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 17:39 -0700
            Re: Junk science, agnotology and cognitronics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-05 11:50 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#616551

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 2:54:29 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:33:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:01:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:20 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:58:08 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:20:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:30:46 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:28:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:33:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:21:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:05:29 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:22:11 AM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there are obviously a number of possible motives involved in developing culturally induced ignorance. What are the main factors involved in the condition where knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty? Apparent complexity, credulity, weak reasoning abilities, deception, vices... People go crazy in groups and only slowly come to their senses individually. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that the opposite happens: People rapidly align with the herd mentality in groups, and only slowly come to their INDIVIDUAL 
> > > > > > > > > > > > senses when being alone or separated in very small groups. THEN, they become easy targets. The history of mankind. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Knowledge is a bottomless pit. The more the knowledge any individual or small group has, the more they know that know nothing. 
> > > > > > > > > > > And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. 
> > > > > > > > > > Francis Bacon spoke strongly to the contrary. 
> > > > > > > > > But 300 years before Francis Bacon, Fr. Roger Bacon invented (or codified) the scientific method. Not sure what point I am trying to make here. But I type it out anyway...time to sleep. 
> > > > > > > > What I meant was that Francis Bacon spoke about the importance of seeking knowledge in such a way as to counter any apparent scriptural directions to the contrary. At the moment, I forget the quote. 
> > > > > > > Laurence, I have no qualms with this approach of Francis Bacon; provided Bacon's method also values the importance of knowledge that leads in a direction that confirms scripture. To act otherwise would be to allow one's preferred worldview to unnecessarily bias one's investigations and/or beliefs. 
> > > > > > The NRSV: "And I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a chasing after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow." I believe this is a harmful verse because increasing knowledge only increases sorrow in the sense that it increases one's awareness of the misfortunes in the world and increases one's responsibilities. Increasing knowledge reduces the sorrow in the world. 
> > > > > Ecclesiastes is entitled to his opinion, as you are to yours Laurence. I shall give both careful consideration. 
> > > > This nicely addresses the issue and shows its importance: "From the patristic period to the beginning of the seventeenth century curiosity was regarded as an intellectual vice. Curious individuals were considered to be proud and "puffed up," and the objects of their investigations were deemed illicit, dispute engendering, unknowable, or useless. Seventeenth-century projects for the advancement of learning had to distance themselves from curiosity and its dubious fruits or, alternatively, enhance the moral status of the curious sensibility. Francis Bacon's proposals for the instauration of knowledge were an integral part of a process by which curiosity underwent a remarkable transformation from vice to virtue over the course of the seventeenth century. The changing fortunes of this human propensity highlight the morally charged nature of early modern debates over the status of natural philosophy and the particular virtues required of its practitioners. The rehabilitation of curiosity was a crucial element in the objectification of scientific knowledge and led to a gradual shift of focus away from the moral qualities of investigators and the propriety of particular objects of knowledge to specific procedures and methods." - "Curiosity, Forbidden Knowledge, and the Reformation of Natural Philosophy in Early Modern England" Peter Harrison 
> > > Author Harrison is perhaps too Francis-Bacon-centric. I have already pointed out that Franciscan Friar Roger Bacon was busy working out the fine points of the experimental method in the early 1300s. And let us not forget St. Thomas Aquinas, who brought Aristotle to Europe and his mentor, St. Albert the Great whose scientific achievements 300 years prior to Francis Bacon, dwarf the latter's scientific efforts. Then there is the School of Salamanca and Fr. Domingo de Soto--contemporaries of Francis B--who discovered Galileo's law of momentum before the latter was born. I could go on further, but this is enough for now. 
> > > 
> > > But thank you for the Baconian philosophy on the acquisition of knowledge, with which I don't disagree. Very interesting. 
> > I certainly did not claim any status for Bacon any greater than any of those you mentioned and don't know why you would read that in.
> Forgive my over-interpretation of your very informative post, Laurence. 
> 
> whodat, you philistine phool, have some discretion when bursting in on the threads of those more, thoughtful, philosophic, world-encompassing, and dare I say, intelligent than yourself.
I was concerned I may have over-done it. A bell-ringer is a humble player in the game.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616527

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:20 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:58:08 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:20:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:30:46 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:28:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:33:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:21:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:05:29 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:22:11 AM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > <snip> 
> > > > > > > > > I think there are obviously a number of possible motives involved in developing culturally induced ignorance. What are the main factors involved in the condition where knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty? Apparent complexity, credulity, weak reasoning abilities, deception, vices... People go crazy in groups and only slowly come to their senses individually. 
> > > > > > > > I believe that the opposite happens: People rapidly align with the herd mentality in groups, and only slowly come to their INDIVIDUAL 
> > > > > > > > senses when being alone or separated in very small groups. THEN, they become easy targets. The history of mankind. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Knowledge is a bottomless pit. The more the knowledge any individual or small group has, the more they know that know nothing. 
> > > > > > > And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. 
> > > > > > Francis Bacon spoke strongly to the contrary. 
> > > > > But 300 years before Francis Bacon, Fr. Roger Bacon invented (or codified) the scientific method. Not sure what point I am trying to make here. But I type it out anyway...time to sleep. 
> > > > What I meant was that Francis Bacon spoke about the importance of seeking knowledge in such a way as to counter any apparent scriptural directions to the contrary. At the moment, I forget the quote. 
> > > Laurence, I have no qualms with this approach of Francis Bacon; provided Bacon's method also values the importance of knowledge that leads in a direction that confirms scripture. To act otherwise would be to allow one's preferred worldview to unnecessarily bias one's investigations and/or beliefs. 
> > The NRSV: "And I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a chasing after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow." I believe this is a harmful verse because increasing knowledge only increases sorrow in the sense that it increases one's awareness of the misfortunes in the world and increases one's responsibilities. Increasing knowledge reduces the sorrow in the world.
> Ecclesiastes is entitled to his opinion, as you are to yours Laurence. I shall give both careful consideration.
New Organon p92 XCIII;"Nor should the prophecy of Daniel be forgotten touching the last ages of the world:'Many shall go to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.'"  
Great Instauration p22; Bacon's Valerius Terminus is the earliest type of the Instauratio. Addresses problem:"If man originally transgressed and fell owing to his pursuit of knowledge, how could it be possible for him again to seek knowledge, without falling from grace?"; "Bacons answer was that:'all knowledge is to be limited by religion, and to be referred to use and action'"; so that "investigations conducted into secondary causes, and with utilitarian ends in mind, would incur no risk of transgression, but instead glorify god, and restore man's dominion over nature. Moses and Solomon had successfully followed this course and were granted by Bacon as an inspiration for later ages"; p23 "Bacon says that in Daniel's prophecy 'speaking of the latter times it is said "Many shall pass to and fro, and science shall be increased";
as if the opening of the world by navigation and commerce and the further discovery of knowledge should meet in one time or age.'"; pp22-3 Bacon said that all knowledge is like a plant planted by god and that it seemed that the current "fructifying" of this plant was "by a general providence and a special prophecy appointed to this autumn of the world.'"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616538

On 8/1/2023 10:58 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:20:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:30:46 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:28:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:33:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:21:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:05:29 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:22:11 AM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> I think there are obviously a number of possible motives involved in developing culturally induced ignorance. What are the main factors involved in the condition where knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty? Apparent complexity, credulity, weak reasoning abilities, deception, vices... People go crazy in groups and only slowly come to their senses individually.
>>>>>>> I believe that the opposite happens: People rapidly align with the herd mentality in groups, and only slowly come to their INDIVIDUAL
>>>>>>> senses when being alone or separated in very small groups. THEN, they become easy targets. The history of mankind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Knowledge is a bottomless pit. The more the knowledge any individual or small group has, the more they know that know nothing.
>>>>>> And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
>>>>> Francis Bacon spoke strongly to the contrary.
>>>> But 300 years before Francis Bacon, Fr. Roger Bacon invented (or codified) the scientific method. Not sure what point I am trying to make here. But I type it out anyway...time to sleep.
>>> What I meant was that Francis Bacon spoke about the importance of seeking knowledge in such a way as to counter any apparent scriptural directions to the contrary. At the moment, I forget the quote.
>> Laurence, I have no qualms with this approach of Francis Bacon; provided Bacon's method also values the importance of knowledge that leads in a direction that confirms scripture. To act otherwise would be to allow one's preferred worldview to unnecessarily bias one's investigations and/or beliefs.
> The NRSV: "And I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a chasing after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow." I believe this is a harmful verse because increasing knowledge only increases sorrow in the sense that it increases one's awareness of the misfortunes in the world and increases one's responsibilities. Increasing knowledge reduces the sorrow in the world.

Again, nothing relevant to physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616539

On 8/1/2023 8:30 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:28:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:33:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:21:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:05:29 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:22:11 AM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> I think there are obviously a number of possible motives involved in developing culturally induced ignorance. What are the main factors involved in the condition where knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty? Apparent complexity, credulity, weak reasoning abilities, deception, vices... People go crazy in groups and only slowly come to their senses individually.
>>>>> I believe that the opposite happens: People rapidly align with the herd mentality in groups, and only slowly come to their INDIVIDUAL
>>>>> senses when being alone or separated in very small groups. THEN, they become easy targets. The history of mankind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Knowledge is a bottomless pit. The more the knowledge any individual or small group has, the more they know that know nothing.
>>>> And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
>>> Francis Bacon spoke strongly to the contrary.
>> But 300 years before Francis Bacon, Fr. Roger Bacon invented (or codified) the scientific method. Not sure what point I am trying to make here. But I type it out anyway...time to sleep.
> What I meant was that Francis Bacon spoke about the importance of seeking knowledge in such a way as to counter any apparent scriptural directions to the contrary. At the moment, I forget the quote.

No physics here...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616462

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science 
> 
> The expression junk science is used to describe scientific data, research, or analysis considered by the person using the phrase to be spurious or fraudulent. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a determination. 
> 
> It usually conveys a pejorative connotation that the research has been untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial, or otherwise unscientific motives. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology 
> 
> Within the sociology of knowledge, agnotology is the study of deliberate, culturally induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product, influence opinion, or win favour, particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data (disinformation).[3][4] More generally, the term includes the condition where more knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty. 
> 
> Cognitronics aims to explain distortions in perception caused by the information society and globalization and cope with these distortions. 
> 
> Major cases: relativity, cosmology, global warming, gender self-determination, origin of life, enzymes and biophysics.
When science works by consensus or popularity it fails pathetically. For example, the Milankovitch theory is the accepted theory of Ice Ages yet it never came close to giving a mechanism for them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616545

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:18:16 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science 
> 
> The expression junk science is used to describe scientific data, research, or analysis considered by the person using the phrase to be spurious or fraudulent. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a determination. 
> 
> It usually conveys a pejorative connotation that the research has been untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial, or otherwise unscientific motives. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology 
> 
> Within the sociology of knowledge, agnotology is the study of deliberate, culturally induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product, influence opinion, or win favour, particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data (disinformation).[3][4] More generally, the term includes the condition where more knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty. 
> 
> Cognitronics aims to explain distortions in perception caused by the information society and globalization and cope with these distortions. 
> 
> Major cases: relativity, cosmology, global warming, gender self-determination, origin of life, enzymes and biophysics.

JUNK SCIENCE EXAMPLE:

Minkowski, more than Larmor, Lorentz, Einstein and even Poincaré, created a stir for the special theory of relativity
outside the small circle of theoretical physicists of the day—that is, before the media circus surrounding the eclipse 
observations of 1919 made Einstein internationally famous. 

Minkowski, in dramatic style, elevated the theory from an absurd proposition to an intriguing possibility in the eyes 
of many of his contemporary mathematicians, physicists and philosophers.

Minkowski acknowledged Woldemar Voigt’s priority for the “Lorentz Transformation”, the mathematical backbone of 
the special theory of relativity,

SOURCES:  

1) Physikalische Zeitschrift, Volume 9, Number 22, (November 1, 1908), p. 762.

2) S. Walter, “Minkowski, Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of Relativity”, in H. Goenner, et al., Editors, 
The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity, Birkauser, Boston, (1999), pp. 45-86.

3) R. Hazelett and D. Turner Editors, The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, a Counter-Revolution in Physics, 
Devin-Adair Company, Old Greenwich, Connecticut, (1979), p. 125

NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and
only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616553

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:18:16 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science 
> > 
> > The expression junk science is used to describe scientific data, research, or analysis considered by the person using the phrase to be spurious or fraudulent. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a determination. 
> > 
> > It usually conveys a pejorative connotation that the research has been untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial, or otherwise unscientific motives. 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology 
> > 
> > Within the sociology of knowledge, agnotology is the study of deliberate, culturally induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product, influence opinion, or win favour, particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data (disinformation).[3][4] More generally, the term includes the condition where more knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty. 
> > 
> > Cognitronics aims to explain distortions in perception caused by the information society and globalization and cope with these distortions. 
> > 
> > Major cases: relativity, cosmology, global warming, gender self-determination, origin of life, enzymes and biophysics.
> JUNK SCIENCE EXAMPLE: 
> 
> Minkowski, more than Larmor, Lorentz, Einstein and even Poincaré, created a stir for the special theory of relativity 
> outside the small circle of theoretical physicists of the day—that is, before the media circus surrounding the eclipse 
> observations of 1919 made Einstein internationally famous. 
> 
> Minkowski, in dramatic style, elevated the theory from an absurd proposition to an intriguing possibility in the eyes 
> of many of his contemporary mathematicians, physicists and philosophers. 
> 
> Minkowski acknowledged Woldemar Voigt’s priority for the “Lorentz Transformation”, the mathematical backbone of 
> the special theory of relativity, 
> 
> SOURCES: 
> 
> 1) Physikalische Zeitschrift, Volume 9, Number 22, (November 1, 1908), p. 762. 
> 
> 2) S. Walter, “Minkowski, Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of Relativity”, in H. Goenner, et al., Editors, 
> The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity, Birkauser, Boston, (1999), pp. 45-86. 
> 
> 3) R. Hazelett and D. Turner Editors, The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, a Counter-Revolution in Physics, 
> Devin-Adair Company, Old Greenwich, Connecticut, (1979), p. 125 
> 
> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and 
> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms".
Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616560

On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

>> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and
>> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many
>> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms".

> Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.

History is not physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616621

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> >> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and 
> >> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
> >> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms". 
> 
> > Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
> History is not physics.
Aren't you a party pooper!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616633

On 8/2/2023 3:58 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and
>>>> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many
>>>> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms".
>>
>>> Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
>> History is not physics.
> Aren't you a party pooper!

If the heat is too much for you, get out of this kitchen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616622

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> t
> >> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and 
> >> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
> >> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms". t
> 
> > Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
> History is not physics.
Historiography has a great deal to do with the scientific method and if you had comprehended the discussion in the least you would know that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616634

On 8/2/2023 4:02 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> t
>>>> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and
>>>> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many
>>>> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms". t
>>
>>> Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
>> History is not physics.

> Historiography has a great deal to do with the 
> scientific method and if you had comprehended the 
> discussion in the least you would know that.

You're attempting to pass a pig wearing lipstick off
as something more than a pig. History, as a study of
past events, has no predictive value(s) which is the
underlying basis for science including physics. If
you were actually an intelligent person this would
not be something that needs explanation to you. Do
you have any science education whatsoever? It seems
not based on your postings to this newsgroup. Survey
courses don't matter where any reply to my question
is concerned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616623

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> >> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and 
> >> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
> >> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms". 
> 
> > Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
> History is not physics.
The belief among historians that history was describing an overall progressive trend did not become prevalent until the Battle of the Books settled the question. Even so, this does not mean all scientific disciplines have necessarily continued to progress, as for example, physics in the twentieth century suffered a setback when it adopted relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616638

On 8/2/2023 4:22 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and
>>>> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many
>>>> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms".
>>
>>> Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
>> History is not physics.
> The belief among historians that history was describing an 

> overall progressive trend did not become prevalent until the 
> Battle of the Books settled the question. Even so, this does 
> not mean all scientific disciplines have necessarily continued 
> to progress, as for example, physics in the twentieth century 
> suffered a setback when it adopted relativity.

You keep making this so easy.

If we look to the industrial revolution as evidence of the
progress in the hard sciences by viewing the technological
devices available to humanity as a direct consequence of
a better scientific understanding of nature we can easily
see the giant leaps, advances, in science beginning in the
19th century and continuing unabated since then. Explain
to me how the computer (or cell phone) you're using to
communicate right here right now were even possible
in 1901.

You cannot because they were not. It is the advances in
science during the period you claim was scientifically
stagnant that have grown into technological advances
many or most of which have occurred since WW2 that
shoot down your argument(s) without having to get into the
details which can also be done yielding the same results.

Did you want to take the harder path, or accept that
which is already "obvious" without delving further? I
can go either way.

And I challenge you to demonstrate an example of the
setback(s) caused by the acceptance of "relativity,"
or 5, or 10, or 100 examples of setbacks. It is very
easy to make claims, and much more difficult or perhaps
impossible to substantiate them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616626

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> >> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and 
> >> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
> >> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms". 
> 
> > Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
> History is not physics.
Democritus and Lucretius believed in an overall progressive trend, inventing the idea of a caveman, but most historians continued to believe in an overall decline until the Battle of the Books. Scientific specialisms continue to rise and fall like nations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616639

On 8/2/2023 5:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and
>>>> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many
>>>> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms".
>>
>>> Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
>> History is not physics.
> Democritus and Lucretius believed in an overall progressive trend, inventing the idea of a caveman, but most historians continued to believe in an overall decline until the Battle of the Books. Scientific specialisms continue to rise and fall like nations.

More lipstick...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616636

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> >> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and 
> >> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
> >> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms". 
> 
> > Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
> History is not physics.
The scientific and industrial revolutions required a change in philosophy that accepted the application of learning to the betterment of human living conditions. Francis Bacon facilitated this. Please see: "Curiosity, Forbidden Knowledge,and the Reformation of Natural Philosophy in Early Modem England" By Peter Harrison*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616641

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> >> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and 
> >> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
> >> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms". 
> 
> > Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare.
> History is not physics.
Science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson REJECTS Science! He embraces gender ideology as science. He also supports relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#616872

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:39:40 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > On 8/1/2023 5:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:50:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > 
> > >> NOTE: For more than 15 years, until the 1919 eclipse, relativity theory was known as "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and 
> > >> only a few physicists in Europe did care about it. Then, being Einstein worldwide famous overnight by MSM, many 
> > >> started to adopt the concepts of special relativity, which basically is "the Lorentz transforms". 
> > 
> > > Schlafly shows spacetime goes back to Poincare. 
> > History is not physics.
> Science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson REJECTS Science! He embraces gender ideology as science. He also supports relativity.

I saw a snippet of NdGT yesterday on Jessie.  In the snippet NdGT said "Today I woke up feeling 80% female". Only Einstein and Carl Sagan are more recognizable as the face of Big Science to great unwashed....now if I could only find a way to get the BBP in front of NdGT.  Maybe Don Lincoln too.  Does anybody in this forum personally know either of these two chumps?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web