Is there a place for woo in science?

You really have no idea what I'm really talking about do you pad .....?

I'll leave it at that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Certainly I do riv!
I'll leave it at that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What am I talking about pad ...?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Heres the full quote

The attitude here is more of a dictator of science , follow me because I'm more intelligent than you

 

Yeah. that's wrong too.

(PS you REALLY should learn to construct your sentences more carefully).

 

The thing is , is that this so called " woo science " is really about what you can understand

There are very few physicists , in the early 1900's that actually knew what Einstein was proposing . Therefore his theory would have been considered " woo science " , by a few here , back in the day

So really , this " woo science " is really a progression of scientific thought , Naturally

And being open minded enough to READ , so and so's theory , as they eventually did , with Einstein , and discuss his theory , rationally and logically

But first had to READ it FIRST

river

 

No. It's about what can't be be supported.

Incorrect.
Einstein had evidence.

Except that the vast majority of the woo promoted here isn't science at all.
(And shows very little thought of any sort, let alone as a "progression").

 

Disagree

First you have to understand what is being said , if you don't , then what supports the theory , is meaningless

 

There is no theory, only claims.

 

So was Einstein at first , just claims

 

Either you're attempting to be funny (which isn't working) or you're vastly ignorant of the basis of Einstein's work.

 

I think you are ignorant of the mindset in the early 1900's

And thats my point

 

You're welcome to think what you like.
It doesn't mean you're correct.

 

the history of Einstein's theory ,the ATTITUDE towards his theory , at the time , 1900's , proves my point

 

Pray tell, what was this "attitude" you speak of towards Einstein's theory?
And which one are you talking about? SR? Photoelectric effect? or Brownian movement?


And, no, there certainly in no room for woo in science.

 

So pad , apparently , you have no idea how Einsteins theory was initially received , in the early 1900s

 

And, of course, you have numerous links showing this "attitude", don't you?
(Or are we expected to just take your word for it?)
Was it subjected to significantly any more criticism than most other new (and radical) theories?
Published in 1915 - generally accepted as validated in 1919. 4 years is nothing.

You appear to confusing the fact that some scientists of the time disagreed with it with "it was widely regarded as woo".
You're also (conveniently for your argument) ignoring the fact that Einstein's work had a solid basis.

 

So you have NO idea how Einstein was received , initially , read a biography of Einstein

Look it up

 

Apparently you think that you're somehow exempt from backing up your claims.
If YOU have a specific claim then it's up to YOU to support that claim.
It's not up to us to search for information that supports YOU.

Unless YOU provide support then we can safely assume that you're making it up.

 

Of course you seem to have an allergy to READING , even on Einstein

You are ignorant on a scientist , that I thought you would know more about

Lambs follow the sheppard , no matter