It is just amazing how viral some consensus and well-marketed research go. It spawns a branch of popular science articles that give the impression of proven theories. What was a possible detection (interpretation) of gravitational waves a week ago, in this thread discussed to be highly questionable, has become the foundation for new articles that point to it as proven and its further implications:
National Geographic: Big Bang Discovery Opens Doors to the "Multiverse"
NY Times: Ripples From the Big Bang
It is also interesting to see people sharing these kind of articles and adding their thoughts on multiverses, dimension jumping, free energy and what not.
The viral effect of consensus research
- Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
-
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm
Re: The viral effect of consensus research
Yup, unfortunately the majority have no idea what a valid criteria for justification is. Majority is substituted for principle, confidence for substance, and determination for rational evaluation of the possible.It is just amazing how viral some consensus and well-marketed research go.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
- Zyxzevn
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: The viral effect of consensus research
Seems like progress is determined by looking forward and not looking back.
Older discoveries are never questioned, especially when they seriously affect the
theories build upon them.
I think it is because of many reasons:
1) Senior scientists determine validity and direction of the scientific research.
2) The prestige and paychecks involved.
3) The amount of scientists that need to change their mind (and eduction) gets larger with each step.
4) The scientists have build a believe-system (a model) and try to find more confirmation
in that belief with each research.
5) Trying to find counter-evidence against established ideas is against the system of incremental
progress that is embedded in the scientific method.
6) False Logic: Sometimes the problems are clear, but there is no clear alternative theory to
replace the false old theory. These theories might be too alternative and require many
other theories to be changed. Instead of accepting the failure of the old theory, the discussion
changes into an attack of the new theories. (A theory is required by the scientific method).
False logic (1): the alternative theory is too complicated so it must be false
(Occam's Razor).
False logic (2): the alternative theory is too exceptional, and it must require
"exceptional evidence". Remember: these theories were developed to explain the problems with
the false theory in the first place.
False logic (3): Instead of removing the false theory, a theory is added to explain away some of
the holes in the false theory. This will repeat until all problems are "explained away". Often these
patch-theories don't require any evidence or solid theories.
Generally a theory that is false can be recognized, when we need more and more theories to explain the
actual observations associated with that theory.
Older discoveries are never questioned, especially when they seriously affect the
theories build upon them.
I think it is because of many reasons:
1) Senior scientists determine validity and direction of the scientific research.
2) The prestige and paychecks involved.
3) The amount of scientists that need to change their mind (and eduction) gets larger with each step.
4) The scientists have build a believe-system (a model) and try to find more confirmation
in that belief with each research.
5) Trying to find counter-evidence against established ideas is against the system of incremental
progress that is embedded in the scientific method.
6) False Logic: Sometimes the problems are clear, but there is no clear alternative theory to
replace the false old theory. These theories might be too alternative and require many
other theories to be changed. Instead of accepting the failure of the old theory, the discussion
changes into an attack of the new theories. (A theory is required by the scientific method).
False logic (1): the alternative theory is too complicated so it must be false
(Occam's Razor).
False logic (2): the alternative theory is too exceptional, and it must require
"exceptional evidence". Remember: these theories were developed to explain the problems with
the false theory in the first place.
False logic (3): Instead of removing the false theory, a theory is added to explain away some of
the holes in the false theory. This will repeat until all problems are "explained away". Often these
patch-theories don't require any evidence or solid theories.
Generally a theory that is false can be recognized, when we need more and more theories to explain the
actual observations associated with that theory.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests