Never simply rely on authority figures

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Q-reeus, Feb 15, 2017.

  1. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    50,469
    Why would you assume that? Science is constantly self-correcting. In this case it worked perfectly. Scientists learned of their mistake, if it really was a mistake, and published a correction. We shouldn't even trust the correction. Maybe they did get it right the first time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,091
    Still not sure how Lamarck fits in as his idea was about the

    passing down of characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime


    which a missing rib would not fit that definition

    The missing rib would be missing at birth and yes following males would copy that template as per the pope dogma

    descent without modification nonsense

    Yes nonsense since all people are modified at conception due to the co-mingling of genes but I suspect that apart from observing general likeness most people would not go checking inside the body to confirm a rib was missing but take boss pope word as gospel

    PING

    On target

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    So you don't find reasons given in #1 reasonable? Can't please everyone.
    Make up your mind. If it worked perfectly, why the lingering doubt over the rebuttal?
    As it happens, there's good reasons to think it has been well and truly settled. Firstly there is no record of a follow-up counter claim article by the original team or members of. Further, as mentioned in the conclusion of the Conclusion at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1194
    But most importantly, because the rebuttal team showed precisely where the original team got it wrong in basic theory. Especially that atom Compton frequency cannot be used as a clock as original team had assumed. And at any rate within GR or any metric gravity theory a null result over a closed path results anyway. Laser induced destruction of any such proposed interference was also identified. And one or more other factors I may have overlooked there. Given the original team based their calculations assuming GR, QED.
    I sure wouldn't have picked it up, and neither did the Nature appointed referees. But it has been shown and not challenged. The reference in that third link I gave is a further well and truly aftermath comment confirming that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    50,469
    No, no one accepts an argument from authority in the scientific community.
    Doubt is how science works.
    Very little should be considered settled in the realm of physics.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,462
    Something that poor Lord Kelvin got spectacularly wrong.

    "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

     
  9. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,091
    NOTHING should be considered settled

    Well may be speed of light

    That seems to be holding up well so far

    It's still being looked at and I suspect it will never cease being reviewed

    But so far so unchanged

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,462
    And maybe the atomic theory of matter.
    And the germ theory of disease.
     
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    You either misunderstood what I wrote in #1, or deliberately misconstrue it. Not only many lay folks but often scientists do just that. Mostly in the latter case when it involves something outside their expertise.
    And? That answers my query how? You claimed the system HAD worked perfectly in that example. Then expressed doubt as to the outcome. I have no problem with that sometimes multiple investigations over a lengthy time-span are needed to arrive at the truth. But that's not how you expressed yourself there.
    Of course. Yet you along with many others here declared totally naturalistic abiogenesis as necessarily true, despite lack of any experimental or even detailed theoretical support worthy to be called such. Dogmatic certainty based on a fixed ideological position. Anyway, you can point to some flaw(s) in https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1194 ? Otherwise, a diffuse truism is an irrelevancy to the example given in #1. By any reasonable standard, that issue is done and dusted. Either the original claims were true or false. And false it is.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,091
    I'll go with those also

    Come back to me in a 1,000 years and we can post more about them

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    50,469
    I'm assuming a degree of uncertainty there. But a very small one.
     
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Fine then.
     
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    authority figures , rarely , think outside the box .
     

Share This Page