Never simply rely on authority figures

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

  1. spidergoat Speak of the Devil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,227
    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:
    2,530
    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:
    2,497
    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 Speak of the Devil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,227
    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:
    5,641
    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:
    2,530
    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:
    5,641
    And maybe the atomic theory of matter.
    And the germ theory of disease.
     
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    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:
    2,530
    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 Speak of the Devil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,227
    I'm assuming a degree of uncertainty there. But a very small one.
     
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    Fine then.
     
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,484
    authority figures , rarely , think outside the box .
     
  16. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,490
    From Xelasnave.1947 Post #14
    I believe they will get a lot more respect than our view of theories from 1000 years ago, although those long dead thinkers made significant advances in our knowledge & deserve respect.

    As time goes by, mainstream physics tends to get closer to ultimate truths of physics.

    Many folks ( including some very intelligent ones) think that our knowledge of physics plots like the right hand side of a parabola (Id est: No upper limit). I think it plots more like an asymptote to some horizontal line parallel to the X-Axis.

    One of the first advances came when somebody conceived of the idea of everything being made of 4 basic elements: Fire, water, earth, & air.

    Most modern folks would consider the above to be both silly & erroneous.​

    Actually is was the first step in the development of a basic concept of modern chemistry & physics: The myriad of known substances being made up of combinations of a much smaller number of more basic substances. At the time, thinkers were aware of huge number of different substances. The above resulted in concepts like the following.

    Liquids had more water than solids.
    Lighter substances had more air.
    Brighter substances had more fire.​

    A later important step came when some bright person thought about cutting a chunk of some substance into smaller & smaller pieces. He developed the notion that at some point he could no longer cut it into smaller pieces & still have the same substance. The smallest such pieces are what we now call molecules.

    The above person or some later thinker conceived of the notion that those smallest pieces could be made of even smaller pieces which were not the same substance.

    It became known that the myriad of different substances could be made up of less than 100 different things we now call atoms.

    Early in the 20th century, it was discovered that atoms were made up of protons, neutrons, & electrons. Wow!!! Only three different substances instead of a myriad.
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,484
    Never .

    In 500yrs. Intellingence or Intellect will grow 4 to 5 times what it is now .
     
  18. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,530
    Debatable

    Apart from such a quantitative statement what is the current status starting point?

    I bet in 500 years there will still be debates about
    • is evolution real
    • does god exist
    We may have more knowledge about physics

    In other aspects it will be business as usual

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,484
    Disagree

    In 500yrs knowledge will have expanded exponentially .
     
  20. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,530
    Unclear what you are disagree with

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,641
    Agree. I was unclear on that too.

    You actually said knowledge will increase.
    And, separately, you gave examples of what I would call philosophical questions - that probably won't be solved.

    I'm not sure if Riv caught that.
     
  22. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,484
    What I'm trying to convey , is that in 500yrs we will understand that , authority figures will cease to exist .

    Because we have come aware that authority figures are not absolute in their thinking .
     
  23. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    River Post #7:
    The problem is ; when can PHD's breakaway from the paradigm of the past thinking ?
    In order for authority to progress ; one must break , authority thinking ; hence a paradox .
    Authority vs progress of thought . Agree! . . .

    Another example of the evolution of scientific opinion might be re: AE's cosmological constant . . . .Yes (AE) . . . . No - 'Biggest blunder of my life' (AE) . . . . Yes -probably (Current status) . . . .
     

Share This Page