On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > data not facts. Also unless the alternative model is better at > explaining the data than the existing theory then why accept it? In > this case the GPS theory makes a lot of sense. Its suggesting that > there was a methodological flaw. It also points out the utility of > Sagan's rule - extraordinary claims require extraordinary data. In > this case they did not have it. A much simpler explanation > (relativistic effects as a function of gps distances) is a more likely > explanation of the phenominon than things suddenly leaping ahead in > time, or breaking the light speed barrier by unknown or unknowable > mechanisms.There is simply not enough replicatability for this to be a > reliable result. What is needed is for the study to be replicated, but > this time taking into account the possible GPS effects.
So it's a fact (heh) that they didn't take the relativistic effects into consideration? I don't really know much about GPS, but some of the comments on that link imply that it is more likely than not that they did in fact, um, factor them in. Perhaps it's even built into GPS? *shrug* By all means, put it to the test! I'm hazarding against jumping to conclusions (hypothesis is fine, I guess) and dismissing stuff that doesn't go with how you think things go. The fact that so many people are so eager to have it be some type of miscalculation -- resist the very idea the data may be correct so -- is what I was getting at. You don't have to "accept" a theory, just don't dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't conform to what you've seen so far. It's sorta what you're talking about, regarding science. There's no end to data. Some totally wrong ideas made perfect sense, to lots of people, at the time (sometimes for quite a while), and jived with common understanding/data. > As for peer review, you simply have not worked with peer review > committees for scientific journals or for conferences. I think that > the physicist and writer David Brin said it best: > > "Top scientists are the most competitive human beings of all time. > Put three in a room and there's blood on the floor. Below them, "young > guns" are constantly looking for some giant to topple or "wrong > corner" of current theory to shine light into and make a reputation. > " How do you know what I've been involved with? Some top scientits have rather large egos. It's been historically recorded that professional rivalries have "tainted" the process before, no? Reputation is what quite a bit are after, according to that quote. And there's a certain aspect of uniformity to the very idea of "peer review", right? That's not always a good thing. Plus (what the hell) the government is a major player in the science game, via grants and whatnot, so I guess there's that bit of potential bias there... Again, I point to the *data* that says all that competition doesn't exactly equal the bestest, fastest, goodest way forward. That we're back at decoherence after 50 some-odd years it pretty cool. Is the popularity of ideas strictly about data? And how well will something be tested if it's not "popular"? Some stuff that wasn't popular enough at the time, that eventually became popular: Polymers, adrenotropic receptors, electron microscope techniques, protein-ion interactions... the list goes on, but resisting change seems to be part of us. Hell, it's part of science (as we understand it so far)-- objects at rest (depending on your frame) and all that. ;)p > peer reviews are one of the chief ways to do this, its like throwing a > bucket of chum to killer sharks. Although to tell the truth, sharks > are more civil about it. If there is any flaw in the study, or factor > that was not accounted for by the authors' interpretation of the > results, its like blood in the water. I've served on a few committees, > and a quarter of my wife's job is supporting such committees, so I > should know. I wasn't condemning review. Far from it. Be it peer or other. I'm not asking for blind faith in X. Just that we try to factor in our biases, or something like that. They're not unknown. > As far as I can see the ideas that you have pointed out that have > falled into disuse or by the wayside is one of the most elegant self > correcting mechanisms around. Much better than what you find in > politics, religion, journalism or business for instance. I wasn't pointing out when we were wrong. Hell, we're wrong a lot, and it's an important part of the process. I was lamenting that we can be a bit slow to verify when we're right. And kinda postulating that attitude might play a role (90%, 4 out of 5 scientists say!). =] > However you are editing out, those learned people, as you call it with > great scorn, invariably say, "According to current theory, you cannot > go faster than light." which is a good data based approach. It tells > nothing more or less than it should. Bu tth epoint is though you also It sounds different when you prefix an "According to current theory". "That's impossible!" from a scientist suxors, IMHO. Science isn't fact. Or truth, or even proof, for a certain definition of the word. Don't get me wrong, science is, um, real, but still. Reality is crazy awesome-- which makes me (or maybe I did it myself) feel like "let there be songs to fill the air" (all RippleInStillWater-like) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw > seem to forget that unlike religion, politic, finance, business etc, > science learns from mistakes. All the things you mentioned fell by the > wayside for the one reason that nothing in scientific research and > theory stands permanently. But the criteria for contradictory data and > change is high. The most recent set of studies have too many > alternative plausible explanations to contradict anything yet. Everything is iterative. Politics, finance, etc.. I think it's a function of time. Science (as a field unto itself, if there is such a thing) holds no monopoly on learning. |)e|\|* -- In the year 1915 a series of trivial incidents led some Chinese students in Cornell University to take up the question of reforming the Chinese language. Hu Shih > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:32 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The scientific community has never resisted change. They're objective, yo! >> >> The issue is scientists can be dogmatic, and "true believers" too >> (sort of the flip of what you are saying, no?). >> >> There are no real "facts", right? And yet you'll hear learned >> individuals say such tripe as "you cannot go faster than light". And >> mean it! >> >> That's /not/ what science is about. Science isn't about fact, it's >> about experiment (or something). >> >> The sound barrier was a lame example. But there's Rosalyn Yalow (got >> a Nobel 20 something years after theory being dissed, I guess), >> Newton's universal law of gravity. Heat as a fluid? Molecular theory >> of gasses? Continental drift? Mendel's genetics? Michael Polanyi's >> work with solid whatsit? >> >> There's *tons* of Nobel winners who's theories were resisted >> (sometimes for decades), not on merit, but because of a human trait to >> resist change (that's crazy talk! Everybody knows you get better by >> letting the bad blood out! *plops paper into trash*). Hundreds of >> papers that were turned down, only to become "cornerstones" of >> science, sometimes as much as half a century later (in rare instances >> longer!). >> >> "Peer review" is an interesting concept. Don't believe too much into it! ;) >> >> My point, such as it is, is that we need to beware the one as much as >> the other. Too easy a belief, too hard a cynic. Thanks to >> experiment, the only *down* side to a bad theory is it doesn't pan >> out. What's the down side to ignoring something that would put us >> that much further on our path to enlightenment? Better to try, and >> find out (or at least try to find out), than never to try because you >> don't "believe". >> >> Keep an open mind, dude. Even Einstein has been wrong. >> >> As for the GPS theory, did you read the comments on that link? Are >> all those folks just "true believers"? Or do maybe some of them have >> some good points? >> >> Science shouldn't be a popularity contest. :)p >> >> |>3|\| "and other cliches" 1 >> >> -- >> In such diffused changes of culture two factors are necessary: contact >> and understanding. >> Hu Shih >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >>> >>> Maybe but the issue is that despite all the massive amounts of >>> evidence against it, the true believer dismisses such as a conspiracy >>> or other some bit of crud. >>> >>> As for the sound barrier, that wasn't so much of a scientific one as >>> an engineering effort. What was needed was the design of a wing that >>> could withstand the buffeting that happens when crossing that >>> threshold. First the US with a special built rocket then the British >>> with an aircraft these engineering issues were solved. Nothing similar >>> to what is discussed. >>> >>> As for the GPS theory, I am sure it was discussed a lot just a month >>> ago in Portland Oregon. The author of that paper was giving a talk at >>> the annual ION scientific meeting. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If you remember what happened with palladium based fusion, there will >>>>> be some true believers who will try and push it in spite of the >>>>> contrary data. >>>> >>>> If you remember what happened with the Sound Barrier (why is it called >>>> a barrier again?) and Gödel, you'd still be pushing too. :) >>>> >>>> Maybe not "it" specifically, but still. >>>> >>>> Has the GPS theory even been corroborated/verified/whatever? Or is >>>> this a case of "hey, that sound logical, and fits with how I already >>>> see the universe!"? =)p >>>> >>>> :DeN "full of wonder (or something)" Uno >>>> >>>> -- >>>> For all the social changes in China can be traced to their early >>>> beginnings in the days when the new tools or vehicles of commerce and >>>> locomotion first brought the Chinese people into unavoidable contact >>>> with the strange ways and novel goods of the Western peoples. >>>> Hu Shih >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:343622 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
