Very good point. We have to keep open mind. Unfortunately most of us a laymen and we take scientific truths of the time as a facts. The flat earth theory is very good example. You look outside of window and earth is flat. You can also demonstrate it easy, you roll ball and it moves away from you and does not come back on other end. The "pseudo scientists" of the time had to be really "crazy" to go against the established truth supported by orthodox scientific community. Many were even burned on stakes, the real crazy ones, did not want see the truth!
Same applies now. Crazy "pseudo scientists" are just ridiculed, shunt to side and refused help by main scientific community even by constructive critism. I listed TED video just to support my premise. I hope you watched.
By the way. Even a Newton laws are under attack by fringe "pseudo scientists" and of course I am sure that you have read that now they are trying to see if they can go faster then light, there goes the Einstein theory. It does not mean that those laws were bad, just that science is not written in stone but fluid. We are able to learn new things and change our "truths" based on new facts. I call it evolution.
On Saturday, April 14, 2012, Tom James wrote:
One way of looking at information /thories or parts of a theory is
that there are six levels or states a theory or information may fall:
Theoretical - No evidence for or against yet possible: eg. M-Theory
Hypothetical - There is some evidence to suggest a possible theory that acoounts
for certain phenomena and is essentially a guess: eg. String Theory
Mathematical - Some form of symbolic respresentation is created that
matches or mirrors the hypothetical: eg. Equations, logic
Proven - Hypothesis demonstrated and accepted by peers shown through
refined equations, in depth research data/facts and scientific method:
Eg. Newtons :Law of Gravity.
Mechanical - Highest level of credibility, beyond proof, and involves
the building of a machine that demonstrates the hypothesis in action:
eg. Special Relativity
The lowest level of credibility is something I call fanatical that
falls below theoretical in that there is no evidence for a phenomena
where any evidence provided can be refuted and that there is
overwhelming or critical evidence that such a theory is complete
nonsense: eg. Flat Earth
No one can know everything and it behoves us as scientists to be
objective rather than making wide sweeping assertions this is "false"
or this is "true" before judging no matter how wierd something seems.
While some things may seem a stretch we
need to look at the facts instead of being guided by blind emotion.
While I do not know as much as some of you about physics, and I make
mistakes, what I am certain of is that I am likely have much more
training and experience(15 years) "specifically" in the area of
"objectivity" than anyone else in the room. I don't just accept things
or current theories because someone says "thats the way it is" and
that includes Einstein, Hawking or anyone else. It is my belief that
the lack of objectivity is one of the fundamental issues facing us
today and any theories worth anything should be able to stand up to
rigorous objective examination.
I hope this helps in some way.
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Tom James ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Tom James, visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup.com/northyorkphysics/members/42291232/
Set my mailing list to email me
As they are sent
In one daily email
Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]