On Aug 12, 12:41Â pm, "Painius"
maol.com> wrote:>> On Aug 11, 12:23 pm, "Painius"
maol.com> wrote:>
>>> . . .
>>> Here, for example, PD, you begin with "Not really, no,"
>>> and then you go on to describe those who "voted yea"
>>> based on a gut feeling rather than evidence. I suppose
>>> Sir Eddington fits this bill. He felt so strongly about the
>>> theory that he conducted the famous expedition to the
>>> isle of PrÃncipe near Africa to watch the solar eclipse of
>>> May 29, 1919. If, however, Einstein's light bending in
>>> a huge gravity well had not been observed, Eddington
>>> most likely would have then voted nay.
>
>> And this speaks to the central point. Eddington did not do the
>> experiment because he thought the theory was right. He thought that it
>> was important *to find out*. What he recognized was that the theory
>> had broad implications *if correct*, and so it was important to test
>> it. Had the experiment gone the other way, it would have been just
>> important for nature to say, no, this isn't what's going on.
>
> PD, you're good, but you're not *that* good. Â You are
> unconvincing here. Â Why? Â Because nobody is going to
> buy that Eddington would go to all that expense and
> trouble just because it *might* be correct. Â That man,
> that great scientist, saw the correctness of relativity
> before even Einstein did. Â And *that's* why he went to
> all the trouble to confirm it. Â He went to that island in
> full expectation that the Newtonian positional change
> would be only about half the actual positional change
> of that star!
Methinks you overreach in trying to read minds.
Experiments are done because the information is valuable no matter
which way the result comes out. If Eddington's experiment showed
Einstein correct, then relativity -- a rather revolutionary theory --
would have been successful in one of its spectacular predictions. If
the experiment showed Einstein wrong, then Maxwell's equations would
be flagged as being suspect, also a stunning revelation. Either way,
the result would be interesting.
>
>>> . . .
>>> I must disagree. Ignorance is not necessarily a
>>> sure sign of crank or kook behavior. Perhaps this
>>> is the main source of arrogance? If so, then i say
>>> the arrogance is founded upon pillars of sand.
>
>> I'm not speaking about scientific ignorance. I'm speaking of ignorance
>> about what science IS and what the scientific method is.
>
> I don't understand. Â If ignorance of what science IS and
> what the scientific method is ain't "scientific ignorance",
> then what precisely IS scientific ignorance? Â How *else*
> would you define it?
Being unaware of natural facts is different than being unaware of how
those facts should be ascertained.
>
>> This is
>> supposed to be something that every school child gets training on from
>> the 7th grade onward. But you're right, not having absorbed this is
>> certainly forgivable. However, what often happens is that the crank
>> will take the time to try to develop a whole new "theory" without
>> first understanding what the role of a theory in science is, and how
>> it is validated, and what benchmarks even a viable (let alone correct)
>> theory must pass. This is not only ignorant, but presumptuous, and the
>> latter is less forgivable where the former is more.
>
>> Again, the issue is not at all about asking questions. It is about
>> someone putting something forward as a purported theory that meets
>> none of the criteria of a more-than-half-baked idea.
>
> Somehow, you've given me the idea that you have lost
> the point of this discussion. Â You seem to see Sanny as
> a crank rather than an inquisitive newcomer, and you
> appear to ignore the fact that this thread is about the
> appropriateness or lack thereof of "voting" on theories
> of science.
My original comment to Sanny was about the appropriateness or lack
thereof of voting on theories of science. Since then, the conversation
has drifted to to tone of responses to certain posters -- I believe
YOU brought that up. In response to the direction YOU took, I've
opined on why that tone is sometimes appropriate and deserved.
>
> And... it's about how wrong it is to mistreat a newcomer
> with undignified--and even false--retributions.
>
>
>
>>> . . .
>>> And calling the inquisitive newcomer "stupid" and a
>>> "fucking idiot" is supposed to help change his or her
>>> mind? Â Such shit-for-brains arrogance only serves to
>>> put the name-caller (AND SCIENCE) in a very bad
>>> light. There is no plausible, real justification for such
>>> vicious and near-criminal behavior on the part of the
>>> oldtimers!
>
>> You will find this to be a relatively rare response . . .
>
> I'm seeing it more and more, this time by no less than
> three respected and revered posters: Uncle Al, Tom and
> Eric. Â They evidently could use a well-deserved vacation,
> or else they can be expected to continue their conflation
> of cranks and newcomers, and their unjustifiable abuse.
>
>> ...to those who are
>> asking a *question*. However, many of the people are putting forward
>> claims of well-developed ideas that aren't well-developed at all, and
>> they've been doing that for a long time, and they have no intention of
>> acknowledging what is necessary to develop it properly. These people
>> are indeed worthy of very harsh criticism. They are a poison to
>> science.
>
> Aren't you being just a little overdramatic? Â A dignified
> form of behavior ought to be called for even under the
> most trying of circumstances. Â Anything else belittles
> and bespittles the one thing we have going for us...
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â science
I don't agree, entirely. It is entirely appropriate for the sake of
other newbies and lurkers to have the line drawn very clearly between
science and pseudoscience.
>
> happy days and...
> Â Â starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.: Â Thank *YOU* for reading!
>
> P.P.S.: Â
http://painellsworth.net
