Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The AI Librarian was AI Programation was re Programation Atomsand the Void
Next: Easy as pi was Re: To Mars for fun was Re: Beam me slider was Re:TheAI Librarian was AI Programation
From: bert on 24 Jun 2010 19:49 On Jun 23, 8:12 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 7:10 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE: When Scientists Sin > > > Fraud, deception and lies in research reveal how science is (mostly) > > self-correctinghttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin&... > > > See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin&... > > In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of > Technology, Nobel laureate physicist Richard P. Feynman articulated > the foundation of scientific integrity: The first principle is that > you must not fool yourselfand you are the easiest person to fool.... > After youve not fooled yourself, its easy not to fool other > scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after > that. > > Unfortunately, says Feynmans Caltech colleague David Goodstein in his > new book On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of > Science (Princeton University Press, 2010), some scientists do try to > fool their colleagues, and believing that everyone is conventionally > honest may make a person more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud. Sam Feynman is my ideal. He was so honest he admitted fudging the math of QED He was to honest for the GOPers that tried to stonewall and coverup the Chalanger. He was a great gift to science and humankind. He like I can not stand political corruption(its every where) If I come up with a theory I get hate.replies. So did Einstein Go figure Trebert
From: Koobee Wublee on 27 Jun 2010 02:57 Experimental results are not good enough. As anyone possessing any amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not. In the SR' case, there are two completely sets of mathematical models come in the scene. Larmor's transform (LaT) explains so, but the Lorentz transform (LoT) only does so in a very special case. While LaT does not satisfy the principle of relativity, LoT does seem so. On top of that, LaT is a more general case. You cannot worship LoT while using LaT as applications to explain all your observations. This is called fraud, stupid, and mysticism. <shrug> So, be a man or a true scientist and stop hiding under these silly excuses that throw out these very fucked up interpretations to certain experiments as the proof of divinity. Gee! Again, theory must agree with a proper interpretation to pertinent experimental results to justify a validity badge. Both SR and GR require shady, unsound, and stupid mis-application of math to achieve what is accepted so. <shrug> Allow the ever so humble Koobee Wublee to de-mystify you. <Amen>
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jun 2010 10:37 On 6/27/10 1:57 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Experimental results are not good enough. As anyone possessing any > amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to > the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether > a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not. Koobee, give us an example--a real measurement.
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 11:01 On Jun 27, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Experimental results are not good enough. As anyone possessing any > amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to > the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether > a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not. Don't be an idiot, KW. Experimental testing is absolutely straightforward. A theory will make a prediction about quantity X measured under circumstances C to have value V +/- delV. The experiment will measure quantity X measured under circumstances C to have value V' +/- delV'. If V +/- delV agrees with V' +/- delV', then there is unambiguous support for the tested theory from that experiment. If the two disagree, then there is unambiguous support for the tested theory from that experiment. Any "interpretation" beyond that finding is superfluous and unscientific. > > In the SR' case, there are two completely sets of mathematical models > come in the scene. Larmor's transform (LaT) explains so, but the > Lorentz transform (LoT) only does so in a very special case. While > LaT does not satisfy the principle of relativity, LoT does seem so. > On top of that, LaT is a more general case. If there are two theories that give identical predictions for quantity X measured under circumstances C to have value V +/- delV, then you probe the theories more to find the other circumstances C' where they make DIFFERENT predictions about quantity Y, and then you test that. Once again, there is no "interpretation" needed or desired. You've got zero idea how to run an experimental test. Zero. > > You cannot worship LoT while using LaT as applications to explain all > your observations. This is called fraud, stupid, and mysticism. > <shrug> > > So, be a man or a true scientist and stop hiding under these silly > excuses that throw out these very fucked up interpretations to certain > experiments as the proof of divinity. Gee! > > Again, theory must agree with a proper interpretation to pertinent > experimental results to justify a validity badge. Both SR and GR > require shady, unsound, and stupid mis-application of math to achieve > what is accepted so. <shrug> > > Allow the ever so humble Koobee Wublee to de-mystify you. <Amen>
From: Koobee Wublee on 28 Jun 2010 13:57
On Jun 28, 8:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Experimental results are not good enough. As anyone possessing any > > amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to > > the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether > > a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not. > > Don't be an idiot, KW. You dont have to worry about that. <shrug> > Experimental testing is absolutely straightforward. Any experiment has to be succumbed to interpretations of the resulting data. <shrug> > A theory will make a prediction about quantity X measured under > circumstances C to have value V +/- delV. > The experiment will measure quantity X measured under circumstances C > to have value V' +/- delV'. > If V +/- delV agrees with V' +/- delV', then there is unambiguous > support for the tested theory from that experiment. > If the two disagree, then there is unambiguous support for the tested > theory from that experiment. Some interpretations of the experimental data are relatively straight forward and require less rigorous efforts, but most of the more interesting ones are not. <shrug> > Any "interpretation" beyond that finding is superfluous and > unscientific. So, according to you, interpreting data of Gravity Probe B which takes up to several years is indeed nonsense. <shrug> > > In the SR' case, there are two completely sets of mathematical models > > come in the scene. Larmor's transform (LaT) explains so, but the > > Lorentz transform (LoT) only does so in a very special case. While > > LaT does not satisfy the principle of relativity, LoT does seem so. > > On top of that, LaT is a more general case. > > If there are two theories that give identical predictions for quantity > X measured under circumstances C to have value V +/- delV, then you > probe the theories more to find the other circumstances C' where they > make DIFFERENT predictions about quantity Y, and then you test that. LaT can be the frame work of a theory, but the LoT cannot be for the reasons I have explained many times over. The LoT is absolutely nonsense. <shrug> > Once again, there is no "interpretation" needed or desired. Once again, you are wrong. <shrug> > You've got zero idea how to run an experimental test. Zero. You need to stop to take it out on yours truly when your grandkids dont come to visit any more. <shrug> > > You cannot worship LoT while using LaT as applications to explain all > > your observations. This is called fraud, stupid, and mysticism. > > <shrug> > > > So, be a man or a true scientist and stop hiding under these silly > > excuses that throw out these very fucked up interpretations to certain > > experiments as the proof of divinity. Gee! > > > Again, theory must agree with a proper interpretation to pertinent > > experimental results to justify a validity badge. Both SR and GR > > require shady, unsound, and stupid mis-application of math to achieve > > what is accepted so. <shrug> > > > Allow the ever so humble Koobee Wublee to de-mystify you. <Amen> |