“Dissention” by Cory Ench
Posted on 11/21/2014 1:16:47 AM PST by Swordmaker
“I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way.” — Thomas Jefferson
It is a common perception that “we stand on the shoulders of giants”: that is, new ideas are based on those inherited from older investigations. If that is the case, then there is a serious hinderance inherent in the approach.
The title of this article is borrowed from Paul Feyerabend, a self-described “epistemological anarchist”, who promulgated an irreverent view of science. It is necessary, in his opinion, to promote inconsistency in the scientific method. By demanding conformity to older theories, those older theories are protected from change, thus inhibiting amended thought. That dogmatic stipulation is familiar to Electric Universe advocates when they attempt to introduce the idea that electricity governs the cosmos and not gravity, alone. The “old guard” immediately mans their guns, aiming to blow apart any intruders attempting to storm their institutionalized walls.
As Cervantes put in the mouth of Don Quijote de la Mancha: “Facts are the enemy of truth”. “Facts” are those data points born from observations that trusted in past theories. Those observations become the “rules” under which all new research is governed. They are the “laws of physics”, for example, that must not be violated lest “thought criminal” be branded on the forehead of the transgressor. The “hallowed halls” of science become the home of sanctified knowledge that brooks no denial.
It is forgotten that the worshipful dictum is an assumption. It is assumed that the charge on the electron does not vary. It is assumed that a kilogram is a kilogram no matter where or when it is measured. It is assumed that the fine structure constant is a constant throughout the Universe. However, it is demonstrated time and again that those assumptions could be wrong. The gravitational constant seems to change every time it is measured. The speed of light—considered to be one of the most inviolate cosmological statutes—has been exceeded in some laboratory experiments. If those facts are obviated by new observations, then laws become mere suggestions.
Skepticism has been lost in modern science. To be a “skeptic” today means to attack new ideas; to marginalize the opposition with a coordinated offensive designed to eliminate competitive viewpoints. It is usually couched in a variety of logical fallacies: appeal to authority; denigration of personality; arguing adverse consequences; or demanding adherence to tradition. As the old gospel song fervently asserts, “If it was good for Paul and Silas, it’s good enough for me”.
Without an inner context, observations can be invisible. That inner context is called a theory. It can be shown that the theories that changed the models science uses to comprehend observations were often based on unsubstantiated particulars. The Electric Universe promotes theories of reality that await confirmation. In conventional conclaves, those theories are nothing but “pseudoscience”, meaning “not genuine”; not “authentic”. So-called “authentic science” is, in reality, the established dogma against which leading-edge visualization should be opposed.
Philosopher Thomas Kuhn wrote: “Examining the record of past research from the vantage of contemporary historiography, the historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places.”
Those new paradigms do not come about because research builds on top of research stone-by-stone. Rather, those “paradigm shifts” usually come about by force. The fall of the Berlin Wall is an equivalent phenomenon. When the decision is made, nothing can withstand it, and that decision can arise suddenly.
If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
It has been said that exploring the Mandelbrot set is like exploring the mind of God. . .
Because anyone knows what the mind of God is like.
The human mind keeps the Mandelbrot set going infinitely. Nothing else. If you keep adding another triangle between each triangle, it will never end. Key word IF. That’s the entire problem with fractals. What if we stop drawing triangles between each 2. Then the fractal stops. Problem solved, it has nothing to do with real science. It is all based on IF.
Yes fractals are observable in nature, however look small enough and you won’t see the pattern continue.
Irrationality is the past, present and future. Were it not for irrational thinkers like Galileo, we would still be letting ignorant schmucks demand everything orbits us.
“Were it not for irrational thinkers like Galileo, we would still be letting ignorant schmucks demand everything orbits us.”
I guess it depends on how you define ‘rational’. I personally think that it is often rational thinking that moves science forward, beyond the irrational. It wasn’t rational to think that the Earth was flat, and that you could fall off the edge, or that by bleeding patients you could rid the body of illness. I agree, however, with the gist of the article, that science moves forward when people think ‘outside the box’. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to get funding for ideas that vary markedly from the established line of thinking.
Really? Who assumes that?
I agree.
“Outside the box” does not necessarily equal “irrational”.
Violations of the law of physics would cause one to be splattered on the ground; e.g., gravity. Violate the laws of economics and we can get inflation, unemployment and/or depression. Putting out theories with no basis in reality or are contradicted by reality; e.g., global warming, could get one death by hypothermia, frostbite, and a physical existence not seen since the Middle Ages.
The church had a point with Galileo when it said that Galileo did not prove his case that the earth revolved around the sun. That wasn’t proven until Isaac Newton and mechanics.
Perhaps a better word is unconventional thinking. Something which is increasing hard to do in an age where government funding of so-called science has created fiefdoms more interested in protecting their government grant than in scientific discovery.
I believe its less true the more physical the science.
The author is referring to kilograms of mass, not weight, and the accepted axiom is that no matter where one measures that mass, the mass remains the same. However, we know that there conditions in which that mass changes, so it is now obvious that axiom is untrue.
Freedom, you are making an excellent point which escapes many scientists who use mathematical models interchangeably with reality. Global warming is a good example of the model method of science where they assume the "map is the territory," or the "math is reality."
General Semanticist Alfred Korzybski in "Science and Sanity, an introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics," defined it as one of the difference between "Aristotelian" and "Non-Aristotelian" thinking.
In chemistry, you are correct. In physics, not so much. It is amazing how much they are willing to sweep under the rug to be able to look the other way.
In each case there is a cabal or clique that sustains itself by promoting these old beliefs despite pile of empirical evidence that grows against them. And so these discredited theories persist until the old-guard proponents either retire or die.
For example, Fred Hoyle, who was regarded as the leading astronomer of his day, was pushing the steady-state theory over the big bang theory right up to the day he died, even after the evidence became overwhelming for the latter. In the same way, it is a safe bet that Jim Hansen will still be preaching the religion of Global Warming on his deathbed. It's just human nature.
The Electric Universe promotes theories of reality that await confirmation.
...
The Electric Universe has a well deserved bad reputation, and whining articles like this confirm it.
Here's another one for you and the orthodox cosmologists to explain using only gravity. This one is called the "Ant Nebula."
Everything we see here is explicable by using Plasma physics mathematics which comport exceedingly well with reality without invoking magical dark matter and dark energy which no one can find, no matter how hard they look. NOTHING in these objects is explicable by solely using gravity as an explanation. The Butterfly Nebula even shows classic Plasmoids on both sides. These are easily reproducible in the plasma laboratory. The orthodox cosmologists are still grasping (and gasping) and trying to come up with a cogent explanation at how these can occur under a gravity model.
Gravity, as far as we know, is a spherical, non-polarly oriented force, operating equally on everything within its field with equal opportunity, yet both of these objects we see polarity and non-equality in spades. Explanations are not forthcoming from the orthodox cosmologists that make any kind of sense.
How about you tell us how these objects came to be, using purely gravity as a modality?
Neither can orthodox cosmologists explain any of the Herbig Haro objects which can reach up to 70 light years in length. This one is a good example, showing the spiraling filamentary structure:
Astronomers say they are created by "spinning jets of hot gases," but have absolutely no explanation how these "hot gases" somehow avoid Boyle's Law and stay cohesive over trillions of miles, or how they seem to spiral around a central core.
How about YOU taking a stab at it?
Oh, wait, you don't explain. You are the essence of the type this article is about. . .
You’re wasting your time with me. I’m already convinced, but not the way you want.
You should publish your work. But I must warn you that there is a widespread conspiracy against bad theories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.