How to spot bad science.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

Copernicus? Galileo? Darwin?

Galileo's problem was that he insulted the Pope.

[BlackCat]

Re: Re: Re: How to spot bad science.

Originally posted by Odin

GW is considered fact by the scientific establishment

Quite true - any sane scientist will agree on that, but that really isn't the question that are disputed. It's the question wether human activities are the main contributor or not that are questioned.

Your reaction to questions wether there may be other explanations is worthy of the catholic inquisition in it's dogmatism - anyone that dares to question the true belief is an heretic and should be burned at the stake.

, Big Fossil Fuel isn't the scientific establishment. the crackpots always attack the scientific establishment or claim the scientific establishment are corporate stooges, neither situation is the case with GW.

This is a very weird comment - exactly wich corporations is blamed to have the scientific society as their stooges ?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't tihnk you have a concept of what physics takes now days.

I don't think you have a concept of everything out (in/or otherwise) there that hasn't even been observed yet...

[Odin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How to spot bad science.

Originally posted by Doddler

2) Just like Global Cooling was considered fact?

It never was by the majority of climatologists of the day.

[Fake Boris]

So Doddler, CO2's greenhouse effect is a "new law of nature"?

[bipolarbear]

Art Bell needs to see this.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


I don't think you have a concept of everything out (in/or otherwise) there that hasn't even been observed yet...

I do, very much so. I am just saying, you have no clue what it takes to do physics now days.

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I do, very much so.

There are observed phenomenon that haven't been explained yet, and you're already claiming to know the nature of all as-of-yet unobserved phenomenon.

I am just saying, you have no clue what it takes to do physics now days.

You are saying far more than that. You are claiming that it is impossible ("couldn't happen") for a single researcher to make a new revolutionary advance in Physics. To prove that statement would require that you already know what all future advances will be, what their impact on the field of physics will be, who is involved with them, and how they will come about.

So tell us Jon... what's the schedual? Where's your evidence to support your assertion?

As for what "clue" I have about what modern physics entails, "no" would require I have 0. Are you sure you want to make that statement? Or are you being ambiguous in the phrasing of your claims?

[Jon Miller]

I don't have to know the nature. I just know how much work physics takes now days. I am not the first to make the statement that I have made, I have heard it from older and wiser physicists then I (I think a Nobel Prize winner even) and it jives with my experience.

Physicists don't work alone anymore, Aeson. We already have had many Physicists who are likely more brilliant then Einstein, but even they work together. Of course, experiments haven't been single man affairs for over 100 years. Also, physics just has to much breadth and background to be done alone.

Even for theories, we have theorists who have been working on all sorts of crazy theories for decades, anything that might possibly have relevance.

Basically, things are just too complicated now.

My statement about no clue is based upon your comments.

JM

[Aeson]

I don't have to know the nature. I just know how much work physics takes now days. I am not the first to make the statement that I have made, I have heard it from older and wiser physicists then I (I think a Nobel Prize winner even) and it jives with my experience.

I do not observe "truth by source". If you want to support your claim, give us some sort of evidence you are basing this off of. Perhaps you could propose a theory!

"I said so, and I think someone else said so" is not evidence of anything except what has been said, and even in that sense, you have so far failed miserably. You can't even note who it was that made the statement(s) you are refering to.

Someone who said something similar which springs to my mind is KrazyHorse, though I am sure there are others. Of course KH didn't say "couldn't happen", as that would be silly... he said "probably impossible". When you include "probably", it accepts a measure of doubt inherent to any such claim. Without it, or other such qualifiers, you are claiming there is no doubt.

Physicists don't work alone anymore, Aeson. We already have had many Physicists who are likely more brilliant then Einstein, but even they work together. Of course, experiments haven't been single man affairs for over 100 years. Also, physics just has to much breadth and background to be done alone.

So you are saying there are no physicists who ever work (or think) on their own, and that there necessarily couldn't be? Or are you generalizing? You say experiments haven't been single man affairs for over 100 years is evidence for "couldn't happen". But some of those who brought forward theories you are saying "couldn't happen" entered the spotlight within that timeframe. How is it possible that they existed in contradiction to your "evidence"?

Even for theories, we have theorists who have been working on all sorts of crazy theories for decades, anything that might possibly have relevance.

So you are saying all possible theories applicable to physics have been determined already? That's nice. I'd really love to hear what Unified Field Theory turned out to be, who came up with it, and when... I seem to have missed that one. Guess it didn't turn out to be important enough to make the news or be mentioned by anyone... Tell us Jon. You're the expert, right?

Basically, things are just too complicated now.

You assume that the tools we (will) have, especially those which (in any given time) are widely available, will never be applicable in a manner in which they haven't already been applied. Hardly a supportable assertion.

You also assume that everything less complicated than what any given physicist can possibly think of has already been thought of. Again, hardly a supportable assertion.

My statement about no clue is based upon your comments.

Ok, so you have said I have no clue again, and have not further clarified your use of "no", nor refuted my offered interpretation. So what evidence do you have that my understanding of physics and what it entails equates to nil?

----------------

Since you mentioned him, and seem to place so much importance in what an authority says:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein

[Jon Miller]

For many of my statements on forums, 99% = 100%. Yes, of course I know something completely different then the expected could happen.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Quit putting words into my mouth.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson
So you are saying there are no physicists who ever work (or think) on their own, and that there necessarily couldn't be? Or are you generalizing? You say experiments haven't been single man affairs for over 100 years is evidence for "couldn't happen". But some of those who brought forward theories you are saying "couldn't happen" entered the spotlight within that timeframe. How is it possible that they existed in contradiction to your "evidence"?

Err, I explicitly made a point about the difference between theory and experiment. Please think before replying.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Have you ever worked in a theory group? Have you ever worked in an experimental group? Have you talked to people who have worked in those sort of groups and asked how they work? That is what my 'no clue' is based on.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson
Someone who said something similar which springs to my mind is KrazyHorse, though I am sure there are others. Of course KH didn't say "couldn't happen", as that would be silly... he said "probably impossible". When you include "probably", it accepts a measure of doubt inherent to any such claim. Without it, or other such qualifiers, you are claiming there is no doubt.

I am pretty sure I have heard it elsewhere also.

JM