"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: Richard Dobson on 13 Jul 2010 05:51 On 13/07/2010 00:39, Immortalist wrote: ... > ...If a person says that he knows the answer to some question or > problem, and then tells us what he knows, his claim to know is > intended to end debate on the topic. Really? Usually it is intended to enable the debate to move on to a further stage. If we establish A and b as givens (perhaps, say, the Pythagoras theorem, which we are told from "reliable authority" is proven for all right triangles etc etc etc), we can move on to consider C, D.... If, every time we debate that theme, we have to prove A and B, as if for the first time, chances are we will never get to C, let alone D. Now proofs are interesting in themselves for many people, and often a new proof of something already proven a different way is greatly valued. Perhaps a shorter, simpler proof of Fermat's last theorem will be found some day, but given that it has now been proven to the satisfaction of all "peers" in the subject, other can now proceed to develop new theorems dependent on it, without having to exhaustively "prove" it all over again from first principles. All they have to do now is cite the relevant paper - a few words instead of a book. Of course if you have some cogno-political objection to the whole principle of peer review and authority, you are obliged to prove every statement you make from first principles, however banal or repetitive it may be. The usual short cut at least in sci.physics is to shout as loud as possible "I am a genius and all other so-called physicists are charlatans and frauds" and leave it at that. Enjoy the irony... Richard Dobson
From: Androcles on 13 Jul 2010 07:18 "Richard Dobson" <richarddobson(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:mGW_n.180869$vB5.118338(a)hurricane... | On 13/07/2010 00:39, Immortalist wrote: | .. | > ...If a person says that he knows the answer to some question or | > problem, and then tells us what he knows, his claim to know is | > intended to end debate on the topic. | | | Really? Usually it is intended to enable the debate to move on to a | further stage. If we establish A and b as givens (perhaps, say, the | Pythagoras theorem, which we are told from "reliable authority" is | proven for all right triangles etc etc etc), we can move on to consider | C, D.... If, every time we debate that theme, we have to prove A and B, | as if for the first time, chances are we will never get to C, let alone D. | | Now proofs are interesting in themselves for many people, and often a | new proof of something already proven a different way is greatly valued. | Perhaps a shorter, simpler proof of Fermat's last theorem will be found | some day, but given that it has now been proven to the satisfaction of | all "peers" in the subject, other can now proceed to develop new | theorems dependent on it, without having to exhaustively "prove" it all | over again from first principles. The whole point about Fermat's "last" theorem is that it wasn't proven by Fermat, even though he claimed the proof was trivial. The same principle applies to any appeal to authority. Whether it is global warming (or even more alarming, anthropogenic global warming) or Einstein's theory of relativity, or the universal big bonk that started a "finite" universe, no proof has been forthcoming. | All they have to do now is cite the | relevant paper - a few words instead of a book. For the proof of Fermat's last theorem, yes. For appeals to authority, no. | Of course if you have some cogno-political objection to the whole | principle of peer review and authority, you are obliged to prove every | statement you make from first principles, however banal or repetitive it | may be. All proof is based on unproven and often unstated axioms. They are so primitive that they have to be accepted without proof. For example, A meets B when B meets A. According to Einstein's relativity, this axiom isn't valid. No matter how many so-called "peers" argue over it, in the case of the twin paradox A meets B at dawn and B meets A at noon. This is because less time has elapsed for A than for B. | The usual short cut at least in sci.physics is to shout as loud | as possible "I am a genius and all other so-called physicists are | charlatans and frauds" and leave it at that. Enjoy the irony... | | Richard Dobson Proofs are interesting in themselves for many people, and often a first time proof of something already claimed a different way is greatly valued. Do as Andrew Wiles did with Fermat's last theorem and prove the charlatan Einstein's relativity from first principles, no appeal to authority allowed. You won't get out of the starting gate. Enjoy the irony, fraud.
From: Tom Sr. on 13 Jul 2010 08:43 On Jul 13, 1:01 am, Buster Norris [Swampwater Jack AKA Patriot Games AKA Bob Milby Jr.] <Bus...(a)Buster.Com> wrote: > I'll do that tomorrow. You're very likely to spree, Junior. You are so seriously psychotic now, rational readers see you obviously answering your own sockpuppets and having conversations with them -- and continuing to claim they are "real people" and not blatant socks. Are you tellings us now you are going to spree tommorow, now today?! Will I see you on the news this afternoon, Bob Milby of Florida? Time for another obsessive-compulsive cut-and-paste, Bobby, as well? K00K. You're so koo-koo you *believe* Usenet readers take you *seriously*! -Tom Sr.
From: Richard Dobson on 13 Jul 2010 10:08 On 13/07/2010 12:18, Androcles wrote: ... > Do as Andrew Wiles did with Fermat's last theorem and prove the > charlatan Einstein's relativity from first principles, no appeal to > authority allowed. You won't get out of the starting gate. Enjoy the > irony, fraud. > I wish I could, but (a) I am not a physicist (well-paid or otherwise; Hi Arindam!) and (b) the experimental procedures required are way beyond my resources. All mathematics needs is a mathematician; physics needs kit. Which is why one needs institutions - few individuals can afford it these days. If/when any of the many arguments from authority on this lists are proved and confirmed by experiment, none will be more pleased than I! Richard Dobson
From: Claudius Denk on 13 Jul 2010 10:15
On Jul 12, 4:36 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 7:35 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:15 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 10:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief > > > > temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. But > > > > you are wrong to suggest that any real scientists would choose to > > > > believe something just because some other "expert" said it to be > > > > true. Believing without evidence is the realm of science-based > > > > whackos, like AGW advocates. It's not the realm of any intellectually > > > > honest real scientist. > > > > Increasing average global temperatures indicate accelerated warming > > > Leave your imagination out of the discussion. > > I see that you are disagreeing with M Purcell but you offer nothing to > back up what you claim. It will do not good to just say something is > true or false and then offer not a shred of evidence. Or is it that we > are not privy to your prior conversations where you did offer evidence > for why you thought that it is not true that increasing average global > temperatures indicate accelerated warming? And does the Purcell just > let you get away with such hollow claims? Only fruitcakes believe in global warming. There is no credible evidence of global warming. It's adherents are just a bunch of dimwitted nose pickers. > > > > > > and we obviously dump various chemicals into the atmosphere which > > > along with increasing waste heat production does affect the weather. > > > But I suspect the political drive to reduce carbon emissions has more > > > to do with air quality than climate change, global temperatures can be > > > reduced by the addition of sulfates in the upper atmosphere. > > > nonsense.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |