Bob
Thanks for agreeing.
I also think there is conflict between what bureaucrats want and what
experimenters want.
Experimenters want to do an experiment and get new results and then have the
theory changed.
But bureaucrats want is to keep things the same and not change things; i.e.
they don't want the theory to change, they want the existing theory to be dogma.
see:
Bureaucrats versus Science.(The Trouble with Physics)(Book review) - Quadrant |
HighBeam Research
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
Bureaucrats versus Science.(The Trouble with Physics)(Book review) - Quadra...
The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin; Penguin, 2007, $59.95. LORD KELVIN,
in the late... | Article from Qu... | |
|
|
Bureaucrats want dead science, but experimenters want living science that
changes as new facts are discovered.
Well as for me: scientists ignore their history of how they got to where they
are now. Einstein worked on unified field theory, so did a lot of other people
and that history is ignored from what is taught to physics student, so they
grow up ignorant.
Roger
On Friday, 26 January 2018, 7:10, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
#yiv5996356374 #yiv5996356374 -- _filtered #yiv5996356374
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5996356374
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5996356374
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv5996356374
#yiv5996356374 p.yiv5996356374MsoNormal, #yiv5996356374
li.yiv5996356374MsoNormal, #yiv5996356374 div.yiv5996356374MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv5996356374 a:link,
#yiv5996356374 span.yiv5996356374MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5996356374 a:visited, #yiv5996356374
span.yiv5996356374MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5996356374
.yiv5996356374MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv5996356374 {margin:1.0in 1.0in
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5996356374 div.yiv5996356374WordSection1 {}#yiv5996356374
Roger- I agree with your timely addition regarding “science” excluding
different thinking. I would note that Hagelstein’s editorial cited below uses
the term “science community” instead of your term “science” to designate the
social entity which excludes different thinking. The following from
Hagelstein’s editorial in which he discusses the fields of nuclear and
condensed matter physics is pertinent to this issue: “The current view
within the scientific community is that these fields have things right, and if
that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then the problem is with
those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in 1989, but now nearly a
quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion labs is much clearer. There
is excess heat, which can be a very big effect; it is reproducible in some
labs; there are not commensurate energetic products; there are many
replications; and there are other anomalies as well. Condensed matter physics
and nuclear physics together are not sufficiently robust to account for these
anomalies. No defense of these fields is required, since if some aspect of the
associated theories is incomplete or can be broken, we would very much like to
break it, so that we can focus on developing new theory that is more closely
matched to experiment.” From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the
establishment’s “science community.” The Corporate, University, Government
Complex, driven by financial gains , should be fingered as the problem
Institution. Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this
nightmare IMHO as Hagelstein suggests. They at the mercy of the government
funding/research grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the
production of real data in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural
laws or nature. Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:
“Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be
no continuity of effort.” I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing
the saving grace afforded by the likes of Mills,Rossi and others around the
world to exist and function on meager funding, producing real controlled excess
heat via LENR without understanding the detailed science or fundamental natural
laws. The control/power hungry “science community” will eat crow in my
optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO). Bob Cook
From: ROGER ANDERTON
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries
>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This
>is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral
>by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by
>convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its
>opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
>it.”
but the "new generation" is taught dogma; textbooks are locked into teaching
things that are wrong but refuse to be corrected
for instance: certain things should be mentioned but are not mentioned to the
"new generation" allowing them to live in ignorance:
John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave".Foundations of Physics 12 (1982)
notes:
"But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out
what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More
extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after
1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg,
could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it
as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in
text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to
the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate
theoretical choice?"
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
wrote: A trusting soul over atlenr-forum.com wrote that science does not
exclude different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid ideas:
Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes
different thinking.
With some example such as:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years
We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's
essay linked to below, you should.
There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the
airplane, the laser and the MRI.
I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as
an imperfect human endeavor:"
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf
Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.
One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true
discovery is lost to historywe would not know about it. Because it is lost. The
logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone who
is absent today please raise your hand."
In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."
- Jed
