What Is Truth?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2013, 08:34 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(31-12-2013 08:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 08:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please put forward all the hypotheses you want. They will remain hypotheses until they are tested and evidence produced.

You seem to think anyone demanding evidence lacks imagination or creativity. This merely shows your misunderstanding and ignorance of science, scientists, the scientific method.
You have presupposed the existence of some things for which there is no evidence, and proceed to vilify those who simply ask for evidence.
[Image: 44474470.jpg]
Imagination and creativity are absolutely necessary in fieldwork. Social research is mostly based on inductive thinking.
Of course people demanding evidence lack imagination and creativity! That's an asset, their job does not require that.

That may be the single most ignorant statement you've made here. You are fucking ignorant and bigoted.

Quote:Their job is deductively testing the hypothesis, not to come up with anything new.

This is also ignorant. What 'they' and what 'jobs'?
Quote:They must stick with the protocols and not deviate one bit from them.
What I resent is a complete disregard of preliminary research of social phenomena. People who invest countless millions to make elementary particles measurable, invest nothing into making social phenomena measurable.

People have been investing in studying society for centuries, and computers are now used.

Quote: Thus they effectively express assumptions, that physical and social phenomena can not have anything in common. Of course this is not true, there are studies like solar flare and crime correlations which is a good step IMO, but the interaction between the natural and social needs to be researched even deeper.

And social scientists do so. What is your point?

Quote:This has nothing to do with scientific method, this has to do with style of thinking that lingers with us since Protestantism, Descartes and physically mechanistic worldview. There are some good studies that can see the world interconnected, but there's not enough of them.

This has everything to do with scientific method and creativity. You have an obvious bias against the physical sciences and a gross misunderstanding of those who study them.

Quote:
(31-12-2013 08:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is a sad, tired argument that has been used by charlatans for centuries. Try harder.
What? I write a pertinent, well-reasoned post about social research methodology (that didn't really get developed until a few decades ago, stuff like Grounded Theory and such) and you respond with this? Do you doubt the difficulties that natural science faces when dealing with social phenomena? Would you at least provide some centuries old documents of these charlatans?

This tired argument: "I can't help but notice how crude and heavy-handed are supposedly objective attempts of natural science to investigate psychics and clairvoyants. These people know nothing about how people work. Psychism is a socio-natural phenomenon, it inherits trouble from both sides, natural and social, methodology must reflect that. For example, did it ever occur to James Randi, that the hypothetical true psychics would be highly secretive people, who don't like attention? Being seen as a freak or afraid of thereof is sure to get them out of spotlight."

The rest of that is a series of bizarre misunderstandings of the practice of science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-12-2013, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2013 09:34 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(31-12-2013 08:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is also ignorant. What 'they' and what 'jobs'?
For starters, the peers who do the peer review? The replication teams? The committees or academic boards or government advisors on science? The self-proclaimed skeptic teams, infiltrating national TV boards?

(31-12-2013 08:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  People have been investing in studying society for centuries, and computers are now used.
Computers have nothing to do with validity of a social research.

(31-12-2013 08:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  And social scientists do so. What is your point?
My point is, the current methodology of science is not right for finding hypothetical phenomena which combine both natural and social elements. In other words, where a person is involved as one of detectors, natural scientists can't get the right persons and social scientists don't have the right equipment and knowledge.
Natural phenomena that affect us neurologically, psychologically, socially, culturally and historically will be the most elusive phenomena ever, because they will be hidden in plain sight and dismissed as random religious nonsense or mythology - and largely rightly, too. They will never offer a repeatable evidence for a natural scientist, unless we know exactly what to look for, where and when. And only social sciences can find that out. Thus I anticipate rise of some very inter-disciplinary fields that will combine social approach with physical testing. There will be of course needed a whole new set of specialized instruments and I assure you, science hates to change its instruments, blaming the instruments is frowned upon, as Thomas Kuhn would say.

(31-12-2013 08:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  This has everything to do with scientific method and creativity. You have an obvious bias against the physical sciences and a gross misunderstanding of those who study them.
We must question everything. Questioning is not denial or rejection. You do not deal with questioning by insulting the questioner. Maybe I'm biased, but it is equally probable that I am actually an unbiased outside observer, that I feel no deep respect (positive bias) to physical sciences unlike most people here and thus I appear hostile. You may think I'm pushing an agenda, but my agenda is a quest for truth, which is the same goal as science has. I value the truth too much not to question everything. I'm not personally dependent on what you think. I have a plenty of personal observations and I don't feel threatened by someone who can only address them indirectly and usually very inaccurately. And you shouldn't feel threatened by me, I am limited by what I can personally observe, which is not all that much, everything else I say can be reasoned with as easily as any other argument.

I'm not trying to convert you - make you accept something without evidence. I'm ambitious, but not THAT ambitious Dodgy I'm just trying to make you admit "yes, that is a real possibility, it's internally logical and doesn't necessarily contradict science." On a good day, if you're feeling well enough, I might manage to get from you a statement like "I'd require such and such evidence to believe it and here's a few ways that might lead to it". That is the most we can do with the current instruments we have and I demand no more.

(31-12-2013 08:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  That may be the single most ignorant statement you've made here. You are fucking ignorant and bigoted.

The rest of that is a series of bizarre misunderstandings of the practice of science.
In my experience, when people tell me that, I understand things from so many points of view, that people don't recognize their own thing at all. Things we agree with are our blind spot, we see them only from within. Just the fact that you repeat me how wrong I am but are unable to tell me how exactly wrong I am, shows how sorely needed the social sciences are. Yes, I may be ignorant in many areas. But what are you, if you're not giving me any real answer?

If I learn during a semester more about science than after 5 years with skeptics, then something is not right. Science is a human endeavor like any other and as such can be questioned. Please note, that I do not question the scientific method itself, I'd never do that. I actually defended it through noetics a few times. What I criticize is the input of scientific method. I criticize the institution and people of science, not science itself. I criticize the corruption, prostitution, bias, professional blindness, routine and other social phenomena, not the science itself. I do the same with the government, economy, religion and so on. I assure you, I get pretty much the same responses from everyone else.

So do you agree that the science has a social dimension and that this dimension matters? Or is science a pristine knowledge descending to us from the perfect world of Platonic forms?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 09:30 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(31-12-2013 08:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  [Image: 44474470.jpg]
Imagination and creativity are absolutely necessary in fieldwork. Social research is mostly based on inductive thinking.
Of course people demanding evidence lack imagination and creativity! That's an asset, their job does not require that. Their job is deductively testing the hypothesis, not to come up with anything new. They must stick with the protocols and not deviate one bit from them.

You are extremely bigoted an uninformed in this area. Science can only progress when new hypotheses are put forward to be tested. The problem with your hypotheses is that aren't testable, and therefore are not valid hypotheses. To qualify as a hypothesis an idea must at least in principle be testable.

To suggest that scientists lack the imagination to come up with wild but true new ideas is to disregard every advance in the history of science. It's an idiotic assertion.

Science is:
* Coming up with testable ideas called hypotheses
* Testing the hypotheses
* Discarding or modifying hypotheses whose predictions fail to match reality

The proof that all of these steps are actively occurring in the scientific community can be seen in humanity's ability to feed itself and put space stations into orbit, to communicate instantly over great distances etc etc.

You don't like the method because you don't like its conclusions. You can't argue against the method. It works. You can't argue against the people working their way through the method. The method is self-correcting and works even when a high percentage of the working population are luddites or potential luddites. It only takes a spark to open up a new branch of science. If you can show that a surprising prediction of your hypothesis holds in the real world, or even if you can show that your hypothesis explains existing known phenomena more simply than existing hypotheses then that spark will cause a fire that sweeps through the scientific community.

But. You. Can't.

You are trapped in a world of woo and seem to be becoming increasingly paranoid, dreaming of conspiracies and ineptitude in those who don't agree with you rather than reexamining your own beliefs objectively.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
31-12-2013, 10:16 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
Read Hafnof's response. He has the right of it.

Oh, and shame on you for misquoting me.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 12:14 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(31-12-2013 06:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Of course I mean an inductive, preliminary research which produces a hypothesis to be tested and proven or disproven.

Do you know what deductive and inductive mean?

Quote:I believe that a well-done preliminary research is the key to producing innovative yet successful hypotheses.

Research is guided by a hypothesis. So what will your "well-done preliminary research" be guided by if it is seeking a hypothesis?

The purpose of research is to try and falsify the alternative hypothesis NOT to try and confirm it. What is a "successful hypotheses"?

Quote: Demanding evidence or test from an idea that isn't well researched yet is about as clever as trying to build a house out of an oak sapling. Ideas have to be given a chance to grow and produce the preliminary evidence, they need a substantial investment before we know if there's anything or not.

No and ideas don't produce evidence. Evidence exists independently of observing minds and is discovered through well-designed experiments (which are nothing more than ways of observing that seek to eliminate the confirmation bias).

Quote: I don't think science is representative if it researches only that which already is measurable and requires no investment to make it measurable. Of course, every investment is a risk.

This is just nonsense that shows that you have no idea about science (social, natural or physical) or its history. At one point in time every measurable variable was not able to be measured. No special procedure is required to make variables measurable--that is what science and technology has been doing since their inception. The solar spectrograph--for example--was invented to make something that was otherwise unmeasurable measurable. But that was motivated by sound theory and empirical evidence that the light from stars has spectral chracteristics. You have neither sound theory or any evidence that "psychic" phenomena occur. There is mo definition even of what "psychic" phenomena are.

Quote:As someone who now has an idea about social sciences I can't help but notice how crude and heavy-handed are supposedly objective attempts of natural science to investigate psychics and clairvoyants.

No, I don't think you know anything about the social sciences either and your posts give the social sciences a bad reputation. You are talking shit as you usually do.

If "psychic" phenomena are real then their discovery and validation is outside the purview of the social sciences. The social sciences can only tell us something about the fruitcakes that claim they have these abilites and the other fruitcakes that believe them not whether they actually have real abilities. And there is already much research in sociology, anthropology and psychology about these people and those that believe them, for example:
The Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft
Shamans and Religion: An Anthropological Exploration in Critical Thinking
New Age and Neopagan Religions in America
Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition

Quote:These people know nothing about how people work. Psychism is a socio-natural phenomenon, it inherits trouble from both sides, natural and social, methodology must reflect that.

No. If "psychic" phenomena exist they would simply be another aspect of human capability such as running, jumping, swimming, seeing, remembering etc. They would not in any way be special, they won't be "socio-natural"--whatever that means.

Quote: For example, did it ever occur to James Randi, that the hypothetical true psychics would be highly secretive people, who don't like attention? Being seen as a freak or afraid of thereof is sure to get them out of spotlight.

This is one of the foundational beliefs that helps you sustain your delusional worldview. It is unfalsifiable. Anyone that presents to be tested is a fake and the "real psychics" never present to be tested because they have an allergy to money or want to remain hidden.

Quote: And what is the million dollar for? Did it ever occur to Randi, that some people don't value money that much, less than their privacy? Why didn't he realize, that money are likely to attract people who want money? In the world of alternative medicine, money are often seen as "dirty", materialistic thing. New Agey people are often idealistic.

They don't have to accept the money and they can accept it and give it to a charity. You are just talking shit.

Quote:Metaphorically said, if natural scientists went to study the wildlife as they go to study, all animals would run away and they'd end up studying an empty forest. Or dead animals. If they tried to attract them with what they think is a bait, they'd end up attracting parasites, scavengers, carrion eaters, bottom feeders... That's exactly what happens. Look at the irony, the most intelligent people on the planet use a known drug and poison to do their social research. If you think religion poisons everything, just look at money. Money poison everything. Never use money as a bait. The true men and women will do it for free or for a honest pay. Use the million to pay for the equipment, James.

This is just nonsense. The "true psychics" aren't legally obligated to accept the money. They can refuse it or accept it and donate it to a charity of their choosing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
01-01-2014, 12:43 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(31-12-2013 09:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Natural phenomena that affect us neurologically, psychologically, socially, culturally and historically will be the most elusive phenomena ever, because they will be hidden in plain sight and dismissed as random religious nonsense or mythology - and largely rightly, too.

The use of alcohol and other intoxicants "affect us neurologically, psychologically, socially, culturally and historically" yet there is a huge mountain of research on this topic from many disciplines.

Quote:They will never offer a repeatable evidence for a natural scientist, unless we know exactly what to look for, where and when.

There will never be "repeatable evidence" for anyone because it is bollocks.

Quote:And only social sciences can find that out.

No it can't.

Quote:Thus I anticipate rise of some very inter-disciplinary fields that will combine social approach with physical testing. There will be of course needed a whole new set of specialized instruments and I assure you, science hates to change its instruments, blaming the instruments is frowned upon, as Thomas Kuhn would say.

Anyone that can demonstrate the existence of "psychic phenomena" would get a Nobel prize and would become famous. You are talking shit as usual.


Quote:We must question everything.

Except your bullshit posts?

Quote:Maybe I'm biased, but it is equally probable that I am actually an unbiased outside observer,

No, you are a superstitious ignoramus.

Quote:I'm not trying to convert you - make you accept something without evidence. I'm ambitious, but not THAT ambitious Dodgy I'm just trying to make you admit "yes, that is a real possibility, it's internally logical and doesn't necessarily contradict science." On a good day, if you're feeling well enough, I might manage to get from you a statement like "I'd require such and such evidence to believe it and here's a few ways that might lead to it". That is the most we can do with the current instruments we have and I demand no more.

There is no sense in which the utter crap that you post and link to is "internally logical" because it is meaningless nonsense.

Quote:In my experience, when people tell me that, I understand things from so many points of view, that people don't recognize their own thing at all.

No, you generally lack understanding. Even your posts regarding the social sciences and humanities are bullshit. You are as ignorant about the social sciences and humanities as you are of the biological and physical sciences.

Quote: Things we agree with are our blind spot, we see them only from within. Just the fact that you repeat me how wrong I am but are unable to tell me how exactly wrong I am, shows how sorely needed the social sciences are.
[

[quote]
Yes, I may be ignorant in many areas. But what are you, if you're not giving me any real answer?

Most of the bullshit you post is not refutable because it is either unfalsifiable or it lacks cognitive content.

Quote:If I learn during a semester more about science than after 5 years with skeptics, then something is not right.

You appear to be impervious to education.

Quote:So do you agree that the science has a social dimension and that this dimension matters? Or is science a pristine knowledge descending to us from the perfect world of Platonic forms?

Of course science has a social dimension. But that in no way helps you. That you need to resort to idiotic and ignorant conspiracy theories and the portrayal of yourself as a messianic figure that will save science from itself shows:

(a) you are a fucking nutcase; and
(b) you are unable to make a positive case for your delusional worldview.

You have literally nothing of value:
--no operationalised variables
--no testable hypotheses
--no cogent theory
--no prima facie evidence

Nothing. Just foaming at the mouth hostility to science and some worthless anecdotes accompanied with psuedo-scientific pseudo-explanations. You bring nothing to the forum besides obfuscation, misinformation and confusion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
01-01-2014, 08:23 AM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 09:38 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(31-12-2013 09:30 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  You are extremely bigoted an uninformed in this area. Science can only progress when new hypotheses are put forward to be tested. The problem with your hypotheses is that aren't testable, and therefore are not valid hypotheses. To qualify as a hypothesis an idea must at least in principle be testable.

To suggest that scientists lack the imagination to come up with wild but true new ideas is to disregard every advance in the history of science. It's an idiotic assertion.

Science is:
* Coming up with testable ideas called hypotheses
* Testing the hypotheses
* Discarding or modifying hypotheses whose predictions fail to match reality

The proof that all of these steps are actively occurring in the scientific community can be seen in humanity's ability to feed itself and put space stations into orbit, to communicate instantly over great distances etc etc.

You don't like the method because you don't like its conclusions. You can't argue against the method. It works. You can't argue against the people working their way through the method. The method is self-correcting and works even when a high percentage of the working population are luddites or potential luddites. It only takes a spark to open up a new branch of science. If you can show that a surprising prediction of your hypothesis holds in the real world, or even if you can show that your hypothesis explains existing known phenomena more simply than existing hypotheses then that spark will cause a fire that sweeps through the scientific community.

But. You. Can't.

You are trapped in a world of woo and seem to be becoming increasingly paranoid, dreaming of conspiracies and ineptitude in those who don't agree with you rather than reexamining your own beliefs objectively.
Never I have argued against the method. Get your bearings straight. And you can't equate science with scientists. Scientists are people, subject to social phenomena. My hypotheses are in principle testable. What we clash on is the lack of confirmation from the side of major scientific institutions. And when I look at institutions, I see just people, not science itself. And the problem is not just lack of money, it's with people themselves.

I say that natural scientists underestimate the preparatory work that is necessary to make something testable. And social scientists do not have the know-how to test things physically. Things may be real and observed long before they are testable or even repeatable in controlled circumstances. Such things are usually observed by non-scientists and thus social science is absolutely necessary to get the preliminary data about such phenomena from the non-scientists. If a natural scientist went to gather such data, he'd end up with one note - "these people talk bullshit". To a natural scientist it is a simple (thus more credible) conclusion, but what I see is a lot of bad social science.

When capitalists don't understand me, they counter with explaining me the Economy 101. You are explaining Scientific method 101 to me.

Here's how I see it. I can't think of everything by myself, I could be wrong. So what I need is someone to check my reasoning, that is, to see if such a thing is theoretically possible. If I can't get such a confirmation, it wouldn't be wise to invest into looking for more tangible evidence. Even if I had it (and I consider the demonstrations I've seen as evidence), it probably would not be noticed and understood, because it's so intertwined with social world. When I point at the scientists, you think that I criticize the science itself as a method of knowledge that dragged us out of dark ages and into the cosmos. No, not at all. I'm worried about the human element in science, that's a different thing. What I saw so far in the skeptical community was a systematic underestimating and ignoring the human element. That worries me, because the human element in science is real and has been a subject of study for a long time. So I have to wonder why is it missing in the presentation. From social point of view the answer is obvious, social groups always adjust their presentation to produce confidence.

Chippy: I'm not the one foaming at the mouth. You show all the symptoms, including quoting small pieces of text.
As for me being a nutcase, just because I'm a nutcase does not mean I am wrong. (and being wrong is not inherently wrong in science) I deliberately experiment with fundamental assumptions about reality to learn more about it. Any assumption we make is a way to reveal some aspect of reality, but also hide the others.
My basic motivation for that is strictly empirical, strictly sensory and as such it is not that much controversial or open to discussion, not much more than Jill Bolte Taylor. Just like Taylor was inspired by a sensory experience, so am I. Nobody demands from Jill Taylor that she gets brain stroke again to prove her points.

(31-12-2013 10:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  Read Hafnof's response. He has the right of it.

Oh, and shame on you for misquoting me.
Very well, Hafnof has his response.
It wasn't misquoting, I did not mean to attach or alter any meaning to it. It was meant to show where are you getting more emotional than is appropriate. I will not search for meaning in verbal abuse, hence I pretty much ignore Chippy. What I see is not a reasonable response, I see a brow-beating and tongue-lashing and I refuse to take that seriously. You are just a person, you have buttons that I can push. Science has no buttons, science can't get offended. It is always human priests who scream "Blasphemy!", not God. Science, like God, has no buttons to push, they can't get offended. As long as you can get offended at all, you're not acting scientifically. By pushing your emotional buttons I am trying to remind you of their existence, so that you can do something about them.
And before you think I get some kind of trolling hardon out of that, let's say I am paying a great price of inhumanity. It is human to get offended, the emotional buttons to push is the basis of relationships, such as they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 11:41 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(31-12-2013 08:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 08:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to think anyone demanding evidence lacks imagination or creativity. This merely shows your misunderstanding and ignorance of science, scientists, the scientific method.
You have presupposed the existence of some things for which there is no evidence, and proceed to vilify those who simply ask for evidence.
Imagination and creativity are absolutely necessary in fieldwork. Social research is mostly based on inductive thinking.
Of course people demanding evidence lack imagination and creativity! That's an asset, their job does not require that. Their job is deductively testing the hypothesis, not to come up with anything new. They must stick with the protocols and not deviate one bit from them.

Shit, son. That'd be news to the fine folks above me over at the ol' Physics department.

But seriously. Self-satisfied blanket condemnation of something you quite evidently don't understand is not endearing.

...

Is there ever a situation where reality doesn't catch up with satire?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
01-01-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 11:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But seriously. Self-satisfied blanket condemnation of something you quite evidently don't understand is not endearing.

Dis what I don't get. Physics damn well *works*. We get loadsa cool shit from it. Now some dude comes along and says 'I don't know what the fuck you're doing, but it's wrong anyway, this is correct' and then a whole bunch of stuff about woo. *If the woo works you should be able to prove it*. Until that time, no dice.

And yet somehow this 'there's a conspiracy not to publish about this stuff' kind of thing sounds plausible to people... Rolleyes

Lumi you're a curious guy. You've got time on your hands. Go read a few basic physics and maths books, up to Calculus and Newton's laws and magnestism and electricity and vectors and that kinda stuff. It's rewarding and cool, and much more interesting than woo, and it's not that hard either. Take you about two or three years max. Go do Coursera courses. Will be worth your while.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 06:52 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 07:11 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 11:59 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 11:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But seriously. Self-satisfied blanket condemnation of something you quite evidently don't understand is not endearing.

Dis what I don't get. Physics damn well *works*. We get loadsa cool shit from it. Now some dude comes along and says 'I don't know what the fuck you're doing, but it's wrong anyway, this is correct' and then a whole bunch of stuff about woo. *If the woo works you should be able to prove it*. Until that time, no dice.

And yet somehow this 'there's a conspiracy not to publish about this stuff' kind of thing sounds plausible to people... Rolleyes
Where are people involved, no conspiracy is necessary. I am an inventor of new ways of thinking, which is a very thankless job, because nobody changes the way of thinking unless they absolutely have to. I don't say the old ways are wrong, we just need to extend them to meet new challenges. I encounter some mind-boggling phenomena and I saw the question. Let's say there is some kind of almost impossible goal ahead of scientists. What would it take? What kind of instruments, theories, methods, personal attitudes ideas and research fields would have to be employed and avoided, in order to bring about the necessary discoveries?

Yes, it is a largely theoretical question, because the more I learn about science, the more daunting the task seems. It would necessary require a combination of social and natural sciences, which is something almost unprecedented in science. I have this vision of the future, but of course future does not materialize easily, it has its own social and historical cycles that I have to respect. Currently the global social situation is way too unstable to support such an effort, we have more pressing matters. I don't think American science can radically develop new ways of thinking or fields when it's entangled in the religious wars, not to speak of the real wars and business and patent schemes. This shit has to go first.

(01-01-2014 11:59 AM)morondog Wrote:  Lumi you're a curious guy. You've got time on your hands. Go read a few basic physics and maths books, up to Calculus and Newton's laws and magnestism and electricity and vectors and that kinda stuff. It's rewarding and cool, and much more interesting than woo, and it's not that hard either. Take you about two or three years max. Go do Coursera courses. Will be worth your while.
What makes you think I doubt physics? Nothing that science had positively proven so far is object of my doubt. I'm concerned about the things that science didn't discover yet I did, and I didn't do so by reading about physics. I see it as a waste of time, there are a plenty of people who already know this stuff. So I don't need to know physics, I need to know physicists. Physicists are people, so I need to study social processes and ways of thinking.
Yes, knowing physics would be interesting to me personally, but if I can't communicate with the institution, it's useless. Peer-review is useless if there are no peers. And anyway I'm not a physicist, I'm concerned about society as a whole and the knowledge of physics would be useless for all the other areas which I deal with.

I don't want that much, I want only people to see the possibility. Often when scientists think that something is possible, they figure out all the rest very quickly. What I need to be is more like a catalyst of a social change, not a grunt in the trenches. I don't deserve any credit, nothing of what I say is new or original, I just can envision the direction in which some areas of society need to be nudged.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: