Relativity of Science

[James S Saint]

Atheist (A) and Christian (C):
A: There is no God
C: But the Bible clearly says that there is
A: The Bible doesn’t count because its authors made a false assumption
C: But there were witnesses including doctors, accountants, lawyers, and unbelievers
A: They made the same false presumption so saw what they expected to see
C: But there have been thousands of witnesses since then
A: There have also been thousands of witnesses saying it wasn’t true
C: But people experience it every day
A: They presume because they don’t understand
C: Look all around at what God has accomplished
A: How do you know it was God that really accomplished it?
C: How else could it have been done?
A: Partially undiscovered true natural laws
C: How could there be growing life without God?
A: Evolution that people mistook for God
C: Can you prove evolution?
A: Not if you refuse to think. Can you disprove it?


Absolutist (A) and relativity Conformist (C)

A: The speed of light is not constant for all reference observers
C: But the Einstein scriptures clearly says that it is
A: His scriptures don’t count because their author made a false assumption
C: But there were witnesses including many scientists and mathematicians
A: They made the same false presumption so saw what they expected to see
C: But there have been thousands of witnesses since then
A: There have also been thousands of witnesses saying it wasn’t true
C: But people experience it every day
A: They presume because they don’t understand
C: Look all around at what relativity has accomplished
A: How do you know it was relativity that really accomplished it?
C: How else could it have been done?
A: Partially undiscovered absolute frame laws
C: How could there be accurate GPS if relativity isn’t true?
A: Even if two wrongs don’t make a right, three lefts will.
C: Can you prove they made "three lefts”?
A: Not if you refuse to think. Can you disprove it?

[rasava]

I could add a third dialogue between those who adhered to Newtonian physics and the Einsteinians during the early part of the twentieth Century. In this example, the Newtonians would (and did) challenge Einstein to disprove their physics and it was (or at least reconfigured significantly). This dialogue would have existed before the experiments with the eclipse. Take yourself back to that period - how mind-boggling would it seem (and still is to most people) to reject the absoluteness of Time? There was no evidence supporting it at the time - the model just tried to fit the same facts into different ways while attempting to clear some anomalies that Einstein found repugnant. So the lesson of your dialogue would be to give new models the chance to prove themselves. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't.

I could also add a fourth dialogue between Einstein - only this time in the role of the proponent of the Unified Field Theory - and those who would prefer to have quantum mechanics and General Relativity sit side by side as the best available explanation. In this case the non UFT proponents demanded that their view be disproved, and Einstein died trying to no avail.

So I'm not saying that any new model will by necessity usurp an established one. I think the end of your dialogues is absolutely correct - the demand to disprove it (or at least, amass enough to make the model plausible). What I would hope is that in the name of good science you don't already presuppose what the outcome will be of that effort.

[Churro the Viscous]

Both of those conversations are stupid, neither participant in either conversation has much understanding of...well...anything.

[PhysBang]

*** EDITED BY LITENINBOLT FOR CONTINUAL UNHEEDING OF WARNINGS ***

[Carleas]

James, is the comparison really that accurate? Einstein's theory of special relativity predicted easily observable, unexpected results from experiments decades before the experiments were possible. The Bible doesn't usefully predict anything.

As to false assumptions, it seems obvious that people in uncontrolled and complex situations can significantly color their experiences with their beliefs. On the other hand, it does not seem obvious that the same type of false assumption could cause scientists observing a controlled experiment to misread a discrepancy in the time displayed by two digital clocks that were once in perfect sync, one of which was stationary and the other of which was flown around in a super-sonic jet.

[James S Saint]

James, is the comparison really that accurate?

Actually the more I thought about it, the more apparent the accuracy became. Realize that the exact same critique that you just gave would have been (and no doubt has been) given in defense of Christianity throughout the past 2000 years. The Greeks no doubt felt that they were far beyond the level of civility of the Israelites and thus their analysis of truth would seem far more significant to them than any old 1000 year old Jewish traditional views. Each generation believes that it sees in a more advanced manner than the last, especially when thousands of years have passed. The Catholic knows that extremely well educated, honest, and respectable people inhabit the Vatican so the thought of them being wrong isn't that easy to accept. In very early Christian days, the Jewish Pharisees appeared similar to the Jews.

But in reality, in every case and perhaps especially today, we each have to take someone else's word that they are being honest, careful, and thoughtful when it is reported that "they have discovered that...".

Science is good about advertising that "we aren't always right". But unfortunately they also demonstrate a history of face-saving techniques, obfuscating, and out and out lying at times for sake of "the cause". Unfortunately the cause of Science has now become identical to that of a religion "Scientism", no difference whatsoever.

Personally, I have nothing against the religions and wouldn't have against Science either if it actual did what it advertises rather than attempt political ploys so as to gain popularity. The manipulation of the population has become extreme and you don't really have to be a psychologist to see a lot of it, but as a psychologist, I can tell you that you do not see 1/10th of what is there. Science makes manipulation of everything easier, including people.

Einstein's theory of special relativity predicted easily observable, unexpected results from experiments decades before the experiments were possible.

Oh really? Have you personally seen any of them yourself? Think of all the people who absolutely know that Jesus or Moses or whoever did this or that based entirely on the story being told afterward by those who wish to cause belief rather than ensure absolute truth. But now think about what happens when the very notion of any absolute truth is regraded as irrelevant. Why not tell a spun story to exaggerate the events? Why be deeply critical of your findings when they already seem to show what you want them to show? "We DO have to fight to save the people from those OTHER religious people, you know."

As to false assumptions, it seems obvious that people in uncontrolled and complex situations can significantly color their experiences with their beliefs. On the other hand, it does not seem obvious that the same type of false assumption could cause scientists observing a controlled experiment to misread a discrepancy in the time displayed by two digital clocks that were once in perfect sync, one of which was stationary and the other of which was flown around in a super-sonic jet.

How long did it take someone to figure out that in the Michelson-Morley experiment the objects doing the measuring and the distance being assumed to be fixed, actually were not fixed at all? Has anyone even yet woken up to the fact that what Maxwell was proposing as aether might not actually have the same properties as air and water because it isn't made up of tinier particles causing the same propagation effects that Morley was trying to measure? And since when was logic reversed to say, that because our experiment didn't prove aether, we have disproven it?

Very many well publicized experiments today are showcased and distorted merely for politics due to what they allude to, not what they actually said. The Quantum Magi live entirely on public misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Apparent consistency of the speed of light led to the ASSUMPTION that there is no absolute frame, "because we can get close enough to what we experience by denying it". But for how long? What is good enough science for today becomes a bad and misleading joke tomorrow.

But the real problem isn't that they push far beyond their real knowledge, but rather that they end up depending on the support of faithful followers. If you admit to being a religion, that is fine, but Science?? That is deep trouble; a religion in disguise needing ALL of the same deceptions so as to maintain the faith and illusion that "our scientists [whom most never really meet] really have it all figured out. No need to listen to anyone else!" Yet when asked to explain a simple paradox problem, they give nothing but political debate tactics typical of highschool cliques.

Look on Wiki concerning the Twin Clocks paradox. What you will see is the mention of how all of those who have argued against were debunked. Exactly how is not mentioned of course, "Take our word. Have faith." Then compare Ed3's analysis of that paradox in this forum.

So yeah, I really do see not only that Science has become no more than a religion, but it has become a technologically advanced religion far more capable of ensuring its proselytizing and is in full swing. It is demonstrated on every forum on the Internet. And it is supported by those who believe that there are no absolute truths anyway, "so emm.. why not fudge a little?"

Today people say "Science has shown.." in the exact same demeanor as they used to say, "God revealed to me...". Not one ounce of difference.

[Liteninbolt]

From my end, it means aspiring to be more than just human. As I have said many times in these forums, science doesn't define me, it only helps me understand this universe we live in.

[Farsight]

James: there is some merit to what you're saying. People behave in a dogmatic fashion within religion, and they do it within physics too. When challenged they react with outrage and hostility, and will say anything to try to discredit you. But I'm afraid you're attacking the wrong target. You shouldn't be attacking relativity per se, you should be attacking the way it's misinterpreted and misrepresented. That's where the dogma lies. A graphic illustration of this concerns the speed of light. Here's something I've written previously on this, please study it carefully. I hope you will then come to appreciate that your present stance requires some revision.

People say the speed of light is constant, and Einstein said it. But it isn't exactly true. Yes, Einstein started with this as a postulate in 1905 when he was doing special relativity, but by 1911 he was into general relativity. That's when he wrote On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light. He kind of got this back to front because his ideas were still evolving, but there's nothing wrong with this:

If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²).

This is the speed of light varying with gravitational potential. It wasn't a one-off, because in 1912 he said it again when he wrote "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential". He repeated this in 1913 when he said: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis". This wasn’t just some early thought that he later discarded, because there it is again in Die Relativitätstheorie in 1915 when he says " the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned." That’s on page 259 of Doc 21, see the princeton bibliography for a list. He says it again in late 1915, on page 150 of Doc 30, within The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein says "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified." He really spells it out in section 22 of the 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory. What he says is this:

In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

People tend to see the word velocity in the translations and tend to think vector quantity. They tend to miss the way he refers to c, which is most definitely a speed. It's pretty obvious he's talking about speed because he’s repeatedly referring to “the principle” or "one of the two fundamental assumptions". He was talking about the special relativity postulate, which is the constant speed of light. And it's even more obvious if you go back to the original German. What he actually said was die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. I’ve got the original German version, and I got a German friend to translate it for me. It translates into the speed of light varies with the locality. The word “velocity” in the translations was the common usage, as in “high velocity bullet”, not the vector quantity that combines speed and direction. He was saying the speed varies with position, hence the reference to the postulate, and hence it causes curvilinear motion. The space is inhomogeneous, so light follows a curved path. like a car veers when the near-side wheels encounter mud at the side of the road. It really is like this, space isn't nothing because it sustains waves and fields, and Einstein said as much in his 1920 Leyden Address. That's where he was talking about space as a kind of "aether", saying this:

According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.

That's Einstein talking about aether, which special relativity had supposedly dispelled.

[James S Saint]

Realize if you will that I am talking about the actual reality of social effects, not anyone's theory and altruistic intent.

James: there is some merit to what you're saying. People behave in a dogmatic fashion within religion, and they do it within physics too. When challenged they react with outrage and hostility, and will say anything to try to discredit you. But I'm afraid you're attacking the wrong target.

That was the very target that I was "attacking" as you put it.

You shouldn't be attacking relativity per se, you should be attacking the way it's misinterpreted and misrepresented. That's where the dogma lies. A graphic illustration of this concerns the speed of light. Here's something I've written previously on this, please study it carefully. I hope you will then come to appreciate that your present stance requires some revision.

"But remember Jesus said..."
"Yes, but that is not exactly what he meant.."

Note how often you are quoting a prophet and defending "what he really meant". In your case, you are rather constantly engaged with people challenging you by quoting scripture passages (my sympathies). In such an exchange, you have little choice to accept the eventual mind set of merely quoting the prophet yourself, because that is all "they" (the louder worshipers) listen to. You can see what happens when I ignore it. In a since, they tease you into falling into their worship as you ignore your potential to analyze and think on your own. The Jews get seriously ridiculous about it among themselves, but it is certainly in all of the religions, most certainly including our new Scientism.

I got introduced into Christianity by first reading only what Jesus was quoted as to saying and I thought, "well that makes sense" and I was happy to think that all those high minded Christians actually had a good understanding.. way.. up.. there.. somewhere, despite what I had to deal with directly. And this is always the case.

In every religion, including Scientism, a founding prophet speaks his words and a movement is started. If you examine his words alone, you will seldom find anything wrong with any of them although you do have to consider their position and intent. You have done this thoroughly with Einstein.

The problem is that in every case, very shortly after the founding prophet leaves the scene, the inmates take over the asylum. All that is left of their founders are a few sound bites and a name afloat a cloud of passion, manipulation, and chaos.


I used to defend the Christians based on the fact that their founder actually had it right and I could pretty easily prove it to anyone in person, although much more difficult online. But the problem is that I, and anyone who attempts such things ends up really fighting the entire mountain in an effort to ensure its better foundation. Not only is there no success to be had in such and endeavor, but it occupies your entire life somewhat pointlessly. It is like beating a bush with a stick in an effort to kill it and taking your entire life to do it. What else would you not have accomplished?

I believe in the general process of expecting just a tiny bit more thinking or good behavior from others than I really expect to receive. In so doing, anyone encourages growth. But in so doing, it becomes difficult to anticipate just how ridiculously bad others can already have gotten. So from whence does the evil come?

Well, it is never really an issue of what some prophet said. Those words are merely the distraction. It is always what someone has taken those words to mean. Remember that symbol on the dollar with the pyramid where the eye of Ra is floating separated from the rest of the pyramid? Well that is largely the way it is in society, complete segregation between those who actually use understanding and those who merely worship someone else's or don't do either. It is the very concept of socialism to separate the right and good from the bad and evil (YHWH). The problem is that such isolationism, despite being quite justified, is in itself largely "evil" (producing more harm than good). You cannot talk to them. They don't know you even exist. The "eye of ra" is disfunctional and to a degree always has been, although Homeland Security is attempting to establish a technological version far greater than any has ever been. The US is run by a religion, and Christianity ain't it.

As you argue day to day, as I have watch you do, do you ever step back to look at what it is that you are actually arguing against? As you state, it isn't what the founding prophets have said, they knew what they meant. And so do you and I. So why don't the others?

The practice and refusal to either think or leave the thinking to those who will adhere to the process of thinking, prevents thinking and drowns those who attempt it. It is a war between active authorities, not between truths. It is a war of worshipers, not of scientists or prophets. On the highest level, none of them actually disagree enough on anything to even mention. The issue is between the worshipers as they empower their superusers with their loyalty and passionate defense of the realm.

Why do you even know the name Einstein or Maxwell (my personal fav)? Isn't Science supposed to be about the thoughts, not their prophets? Why does anyone even speak the words, "But Einstein said"? Think about it.

The practice of worship within Science is the only real enemy to its progress. If you read any of my blogs associated with governing, you could see that I am somewhat of an extreme idealist aimed at honest governing and practices noting to always openly document what you do and think and always do and think what you openly document. I never mention names as an excuse to do or think something.

[Carleas]

Well, we're really talking about a few different things. Allow me to try to piece this out, and please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument.

First I don't think you're commenting on 'science' as a principle, i.e. the process of prediction and controlled experimentation to find new knowledge. This, in principle, can decide between any two competing theories. We do not need to take this principle for acquiring information on faith, it is something that we can and do do ourselves. When I say that this process, in principle, is better than the process used by the Catholic Church (e.g. direct divine inspiration of an appointed ruler, unquestioning acceptance of a set of holy documents), I'm not appealing to faith or authority, and I don't think my statement is necessarily comparable to other societies that have felt the same way.

What you seem to commenting on are 1) the practice of science, i.e. the peer review process, the institutional structure, and the fallible human scientists themselves, and 2) the popular understanding of science, how non-scientists internalize and deal with what the institutions of science tell them (or what they think they tell them).

1) The practice of science can again be divided into a "theory of the practice" (ToP) and a "practice of the practice" (PoP). The ToP is that, because people's beliefs, assumptions, or poor reasoning can lead them to err unintentionally (or intentionally), the work that they do in applying the theory of science is only valid when a disparate group of peers (assumed to have different biases, shortcomings, etc.) is able to review the procedure and confirm any experimental finding. The PoP is how that theory is actually carried out.

Again, it seems that the scientific ToP is better suited to discovering new facts about the world than is the Catholic ToP, which even in theory is something like what you're alleging to be the case for Science. The scientific ToP accepts many of your allegations (e.g. "Why not tell a spun story to exaggerate the events? Why be deeply critical of your findings when they already seem to show what you want them to show?"), and attempts to address them with an institution that checks human frailty by making every finding, no matter who by, subject to review.

The PoP of science hews reasonably close to the theory. Granted, the peer review process itself is vulnerable when peers share characteristics or biases (e.g. minorities are excluded), and it is not always practically possible to repeat every experiment, but it is hard to deny that the technique has drastically increased the pace of discovery, despite its shortcomings. Humans can be untrustworthy, but the system is designed so that one must not trust the individuals, per se, but rather the process through which the individuals must go to have their work established as reliable. So, here again we can strip out a great deal of trust and faith in authority, and instead put faith in our own rational acceptance of a system designed to produce and confirm facts.

2) The popular relationship with science can often be religious-feeling, but it doesn't have to come down to faith in authority figures. A lay individual who has not personally confirmed the positions she's come to accept can still reasonably rely on the theory and the ToP of science to conclude that most of what is published in peer-reviewed journals is more-or-less accurate. It's also rational to assume that most of what the mainstream media reports about those findings is reported in good faith and their intent is not to mislead (again, an appeal can be made to a ToP of journalism that encourages faithful reporting, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion).

Of course, that a rational case can be made for trusting the products of science does not mean that all trust that is placed in science is rational. One can trust for bad reasons. But this is a very different complaint. It is a complaint about poorly reasoning individual humans, rather than one about any specific aspect of science itself.

[James S Saint]

Well, we're really talking about a few different things. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your argument.

First I don't think you're commenting on 'science' as a principle,
...
2) The popular relationship with science can often be religious-feeling, but it doesn't have to come down to faith in authority figures. A lay individual who has not personally confirmed the positions she's come to accept can still reasonably rely on the theory and the ToP of science to conclude that most of what is published in peer-reviewed journals is more-or-less accurate.

I was in complete agreement all the way to that statement. And that is really what this thread is about.

You have pointed out and addressed the issue of the theory and ideal of Science. But its ideal is being betrayed on a vast scale and that is what I am pointing out. I dearly love the real ideal of Science and that is why I get a little perturbed when I see such a huge disregard for its intention. As PhyBang stated, "I don't care what Science intends".

It's also rational to assume that most of what the mainstream media reports about those findings is reported in good faith and their intent is not to mislead (again, an appeal can be made to a ToP of journalism that encourages faithful reporting, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion).

No that is indirectly a large concern in this discussion.

Hawkings is a good example of what is basically an evangelist and PR man who gains from fascinating speculation, quickly reported by the media, that sounds scientific, but in reality is not at all scientific nor "peer reviewed". To seem scientific, all that is required is a show of math that no one in the population either understands or cares to try to verify. The fundamental concepts involved are usually the pure speculation and fundamental flaw in the dissertation.

Perhaps you are not aware that the Catholic church has in the Vatican, a very rigorous peer review process as well, even better than that of Science. And anyone speculating too loudly as Hawkings to the population will be tethered quickly by the Vatican. That Church is very careful to investigate and ensure that anything the Pope might say, is highly probably true. The membership then is required to take certain things he says as infallibly true or find a different church, but only certain things that are distinguished.

It is a complaint about poorly reasoning individual humans, rather than one about any specific aspect of science itself.

That is exactly my point.

It is the population and their social engineers guiding them with fascination and passion who cause the corruption of the otherwise superior process. If such was merely a few people getting out of hand, I wouldn't complain and I would expect Science professionals to take care of them. But such isn't the case.

In stead of Science following its more original altruistic design, it has become overrun and controlled by politics and persuasion. There has always been a little of that, but it has gotten ridiculous. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a good example of how Science has always been willing to accept as "Law" something that was never proven and in fact logically disproven 120 years ago by Maxwell ("Maxwell's demon"). That "Law" was promoted, not for its soundness from scientific process at all, but due to political incentives stemming largely from the religions. That "Law" implies that there must be a Creator, else there could be no creation or life.

But even without political influence, the "Law", being shown to be untrue, was reworded over and over so as to make it seem that Science never really had it wrong. Today that "Law" merely states that there is a tendency to..." Now since when is something a "Scientific LAW" merely because it is a tendency? Is it a scientific law of nature that a female is shorter than a male human?

Science has been involved in their PR and ego for generations and it has gotten far worse, not better. So they are really NOT what you are describing at all. I seriously wish they were and would return to it.

The issue of global warming is another example of how Science is corrupted by politics. The extreme number of people online who misunderstand their Science scripture versus (as required by law in the US) yet get irate at any insinuation that what they think "Science says" might be false, is another example of not how a few people are going astray, but how a huge population is being actually enticed and led astray.

You point out that Science is a "relatively" better way to go. Well, that can be debated on grounds of what really leads to a better tomorrow, but as far as discerning truth versus fiction, I think the concept of Science wins hands down. The problem is that it is no longer in the business of discerning truth versus fiction. You seem to be unaware of that. But then how is that really different than "having faith in the church"?

If I stated that the Church of Science is being led astray, could you prove me wrong? I have no doubt that if you tried, you would discover by investing in a more truly scientific manner, that I was all too right.

It is for the sake of Science that I accuse it of being a Church. The sad thing is that I do not need to exaggerate to say it. Do a search on "scientism", see what you get. Of course there will be those who exaggerate the concern, but keep looking. You will find some very rational people who are very concerned of how much deception and worship is being sold as Science without any tethering at all. I can point out many of their methods merely because my carrier was in "intelligence design" which allows for me to quickly perceive when something is being done to disrupt intelligence versus enhance it.

As churches go, Science is better at knowing when they are actually right, but also better at ensuring that you are complying to "proper behavior" and not "sinning against the Church". The examples are throughout the forums on the Internet and very predominate here as can be easily shown (and recently has been). But then, today, largely due to those who used Science, how can any forum be established based on only the few remaining rational thinkers? It is a business, It has to do what works and what works, is to cause people to be faithful followers, not better thinkers.

I suspect that if Abram had not found his excuse to not sacrifice his son on the alter that day so very long ago, we wouldn't have the billions of mere followers and sheep to have to try to deal with now.

[Farsight]

Realize if you will that I am talking about the actual reality of social effects, not anyone's theory and altruistic intent.

I empathisize absolutely. But I think you've taken the wrong approach with your last couple of threads.

That was the very target that I was "attacking" as you put it.

And so you should.

"But remember Jesus said..." "Yes, but that is not exactly what he meant.."

Back up the Einstein quotes with hard scientific evidence like the Shapiro delay, where the wikipedia article includes the chapter 22 quote. Or use this example: take two identical light clocks, keep them flat to avoid radial length contraction, and place one up in space and the other down near a planet, in a region of low gravitational potential. What happens? The second light clock runs slower. And it runs slower because the light goes slower. That's it, that's the scientific evidence, that's what's important. What you should be attacking is the denial of this evidence by people who claim to be defending relativity. Why don't you take my post or edit it into your own words and then put it up on physicsforums? I'm banned from there as some kind of heretic, so I can't.

Note how often you are quoting a prophet and defending "what he really meant". In your case, you are rather constantly engaged with people challenging you by quoting scripture passages (my sympathies). In such an exchange, you have little choice to accept the eventual mind set of merely quoting the prophet yourself, because that is all "they" (the louder worshipers) listen to. You can see what happens when I ignore it. In a since, they tease you into falling into their worship as you ignore your potential to analyze and think on your own. The Jews get seriously ridiculous about it among themselves, but it is certainly in all of the religions, most certainly including our new Scientism.

I do what I can. It's a battle of ideas, and we've all got to pull together.

I got introduced into Christianity by first reading only what Jesus was quoted as to saying and I thought, "well that makes sense" and I was happy to think that all those high minded Christians actually had a good understanding.. way.. up.. there.. somewhere, despite what I had to deal with directly. And this is always the case. In every religion, including Scientism, a founding prophet speaks his words and a movement is started. If you examine his words alone, you will seldom find anything wrong with any of them although you do have to consider their position and intent. You have done this thoroughly with Einstein. The problem is that in every case, very shortly after the founding prophet leaves the scene, the inmates take over the asylum. All that is left of their founders are a few sound bites and a name afloat a cloud of passion, manipulation, and chaos.

Yes, it's a problem, and it's not easy to fix. But I think the best way to fight those inmates is to throw their own prophet back in their face followed by a bucketful of scientific evidence.

I used to defend the Christians based on the fact that their founder actually had it right and I could pretty easily prove it to anyone in person, although much more difficult online. But the problem is that I, and anyone who attempts such things ends up really fighting the entire mountain in an effort to ensure its better foundation. Not only is there no success to be had in such and endeavor, but it occupies your entire life somewhat pointlessly. It is like beating a bush with a stick in an effort to kill it and taking your entire life to do it. What else would you not have accomplished?

It isn't hopeless. We've got the internet.

I believe in the general process of expecting just a tiny bit more thinking or good behavior from others than I really expect to receive. In so doing, anyone encourages growth. But in so doing, it becomes difficult to anticipate just how ridiculously bad others can already have gotten. So from whence does the evil come?

From greed and selfishness and vested interest. That's how people are.

Well, it is never really an issue of what some prophet said. Those words are merely the distraction. It is always what someone has taken those words to mean. Remember that symbol on the dollar with the pyramid where the eye of Ra is floating separated from the rest of the pyramid? Well that is largely the way it is in society, complete segregation between those who actually use understanding and those who merely worship someone else's or don't do either. It is the very concept of socialism to separate the right and good from the bad and evil (YHWH). The problem is that such isolationism, despite being quite justified, is in itself largely "evil" (producing more harm than good). You cannot talk to them. They don't know you even exist. The "eye of ra" is disfunctional and to a degree always has been, although Homeland Security is attempting to establish a technological version far greater than any has ever been. The US is run by a religion, and Christianity ain't it.

Let's not get into what might be used as a "conspiracy theorist" criticism intended to discredit you.

As you argue day to day, as I have watch you do, do you ever step back to look at what it is that you are actually arguing against? As you state, it isn't what the founding prophets have said, they knew what they meant. And so do you and I. So why don't the others?

Many do. But others will say and do anything to oppose it.

The practice and refusal to either think or leave the thinking to those who will adhere to the process of thinking, prevents thinking and drowns those who attempt it. It is a war between active authorities, not between truths. It is a war of worshippers, not of scientists or prophets. On the highest level, none of them actually disagree enough on anything to even mention. The issue is between the worshippers as they empower their superusers with their loyalty and passionate defense of the realm.

It's a power and elitism thing rater than a matter of worship.

Why do you even know the name Einstein or Maxwell (my personal fav)? Isn't Science supposed to be about the thoughts, not their prophets? Why does anyone even speak the words, "But Einstein said"? Think about it.

They appeal to authority to deflect attention from the evidence and the logic.

The practice of worship within Science is the only real enemy to its progress. If you read any of my blogs associated with governing, you could see that I am somewhat of an extreme idealist aimed at honest governing and practices noting to always openly document what you do and think and always do and think what you openly document. I never mention names as an excuse to do or think something.

I talk in terms of belief and conviction rather than worship, but we're barking up the same tree. Please understand that I'm trying to help. I'm giving you a surer aim, and the ammunition. Please use it. Attack the misinterpretation and the mythology that is touted as relativity, not relativity itself.

[James S Saint]

I empathisize absolutely. But I think you've taken the wrong approach with your last couple of threads.

They, like most of my threads, are investigative and partial experimental. Unfortunately, they depend on particular forums. What works on one doesn't on another.

"But remember Jesus said..." "Yes, but that is not exactly what he meant.."

Back up the Einstein quotes with hard scientific evidence like the Shapiro delay, where the wikipedia article includes the chapter 22 quote. Or use this example: take two identical light clocks, keep them flat to avoid radial length contraction, and place one up in space and the other down near a planet, in a region of low gravitational potential. What happens? The second light clock runs slower. And it runs slower because the light goes slower. That's it, that's the scientific evidence, that's what's important. What you should be attacking is the denial of this evidence by people who claim to be defending relativity. Why don't you take my post or edit it into your own words and then put it up on physicsforums? I'm banned from there as some kind of heretic, so I can't.

How has that worked for you so far?

...oh.. got banned... hmm..

And emm.. exactly to which posts were you referring?

I do what I can. It's a battle of ideas, and we've all got to pull together.

It is supposed to be a battle of ideas, but in reality it is a battle of politics. Good solid likemindedness is required for teamwork. I could spend time requoting Einstein, but what is the end result of that in reality?

Yes, it's a problem, and it's not easy to fix. But I think the best way to fight those inmates is to throw their own prophet back in their face followed by a bucketful of scientific evidence.

How is that going to ever lead people into actually thinking? The Jews have been doing that sort of thing for 3000 years. That's like 150 generations. Endless quoting of others leads only to endless quoting of others... more sheep with which to contend tomorrow.

It isn't hopeless. We've got the internet.

It takes more than that.. and staying unbanned.

It's a power and elitism thing rather than a matter of worship.

Is there a difference? ... really?

They appeal to authority to deflect attention from the evidence and the logic.

They appeal to authority because everyone else is. "What goes around, comes around."

Attack the misinterpretation and the mythology that is touted as relativity, not relativity itself.

Regardless of truth? The real truth happens to be that the speed of light is not really constant for all observers, but merely almost constant (regardless of gravity). Yes, their interpretations are wrong, but then the theory itself is actually not quite right either. It is based on the admitted (by Einstein and crew) assumption that the speed of light is a constant.

Einstein dutifully states that his work is assuming that what he has been told about the speed of light and Galilean relativity are accurate. Einstein didn't really err. He stated and knew that it was all based on an assumption that he wasn't really all that certain of himself, but if true, "then the following consequential facts must be also true..". I don't have anything but admiration for his work on the subject. It just so happens that the assumption isn't really right. That isn't his fault.

So even quoting Einstein is not really addressing the problem at all. It just serves to amplify the problem of not thinking for oneself and in this case, just helps to hide the actual error. People quoting scriptures do that same thing to their other religions as well.

Logical thinking is what is missing and that is due to political incentives.

[Carleas]

I'd like to thank everyone for their comments in this discussion, I am finding it very interesting food for thought.

James, It still seems that you're conflating science as an endeavor and science as a popular conception. I'm going to avoid, as much as possible, getting too deeply into specific examples, because I think those will tend to take us off topic; as I read it, this thread isn't really about Special Relativity or Einstein, but about the broader issues surrounding science that have come up in threads that were.

I don't think there can be any question that science as an endeavor is working, perhaps not perfectly, but to the extent that we are continuing to produce new information about the world, and that that information is confirmed over and over again by the vast practical implications of the developments. Computer technology keeps shrinking and speeding up, extra-solar space exploration is expanding rapidly, new medical technologies are saving more lives for less money than ever before. It's hard to summarize all the complexity subsumed under "the pace of knowledge creation", but we can certainly say that it is non-zero, and that it is due far more to science than to religion.

The problem is that the frontiers of science are more specialized than ever before. A timely example is the recent supposed proof of the P=NP problem, one of the more important and intractable problems in computer science (the proof was rejected as flawed). Though it was covered somewhat by non-technical media, it is difficult to explain what exactly the proof tried to show to someone without a solid foundation in set theory and complexity theory, let alone explaining how the proof worked or why a lay person should care. This is a more and more common occurrence in science: questions that are not merely hard to answer, they are very hard to even ask.

Popularizers of science attempting to bridge the gap between these highly specialized fields and the rest of the population have a very difficult problem, and few have been very successful. Hawking does real science, for example predicting Hawking radiation from quantum theory, and he also writes popular summaries of scientific understanding, such as A Brief History of Time. The latter are not peer-reviewed (or rather, not officially so), because they are not intended to prove anything. They are intended to take arcane concepts used in theoretical physics and make them accessible to people who are not familiar with theoretical physics.

Thus, it becomes a problem of losing precision in translation. The harm this causes does not require any sinister intent to be predicted and understood. Even without anything being "done to disrupt intelligence" (my emphasis), intelligence is disrupted when well-meaning scientists translate precise mathematical facts (or what have you) into easily-understandable-but-significantly-less-precise, non-technical language. The result is very similar to poetry, which tries to capture highly complex ideas in simple terms, and like all poetry it is vulnerable to interpretation.

So, we have two competing explanation (again, assuming I'm reading your position correctly):
-On the one hand, we have well-meaning popularizers who inadvertently mislead, and a naive populace that takes their interpretation of those facts as gospel, leading to misguided reverence and bull-headed acceptance of the science as they understand it.
-On the other hand, we have sinister or selfish individuals within the scientific (and possibly political, media, etc.) community intentionally misleading the same naive populace, with the same result.

I think there are good reasons to prefer the former scenario. It accounts for continuing progress in understanding and controlling our world while also recognizing that science is misleading some of the population, but it does so without wading into the "conspiracy theorist" criticism that Farsight cautions against. And that criticism is good to avoid not only because it can be used to dismiss your argument. Because of the size and diversity of interests represented in the scientific community, even among popularizers and evangelists of science, it would require an extremely great amount of evidence to prove intentional misrepresentation. Given an explanation that accounts for observations without appeal to anything resembling a conspiracy (which I think I am providing), we should prefer it because the burden of proof will be significantly reduced.

Farsight, I'm curious what your experiences were on physicsforums (both as a science buff and as a forum admin:). If you're comfortable sharing, what were the circumstances of your banning there? From what I've seen of you here, you are respectful and well spoken, and have interesting things to say on the subjects that concern you. It would speak very poorly of a supposedly scientific community to forcibly remove someone simply for deigning to disagree.

[Xunzian]

Let's use this as a rough rubric to examine the physics of James S Saint as presented in his other threads. Items that fit him will be bolded.

The Crackpot Index

John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

Several people have tried to provide clear examples as to why he is espousing ideas that are widely agreed upon to be false, but he has rejected their corrections as an appeal to religious authority without backing that statement up.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

This is an internet forum, so we'll allow a certain amount of conjecture and, in the spirit of charity, disregard this point.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

Given his Orwellian editing of his OPs, we can safely conclude that his position contains elements that are not logically consistent. In the spirit of charity, we'll only count this one once.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

This has been done several times by several different posters, but, again, we'll only count it once.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

I kinda think this criteria is bullshit at the amateur level, so we'll discount it.

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

He's done that.

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

He is actually very good at math, so this one doesn't apply.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

Oh yes!

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

I'm on the fence as to whether or not this one counts, since this thread is clearly an example of that type of thinking while not actually using that phrase. We'll let it slide.

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

Again, I'm not sure whether this one counts or not. This thread does seem to advance that hypothesis . . .

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Not looking too good.

[Farsight]

Farsight, I'm curious what your experiences were on physicsforums (both as a science buff and as a forum admin:). If you're comfortable sharing, what were the circumstances of your banning there? From what I've seen of you here, you are respectful and well spoken, and have interesting things to say on the subjects that concern you. It would speak very poorly of a supposedly scientific community to forcibly remove someone simply for deigning to disagree.

I'd have to check the dates, so don't quote me, but I started with a userid of "Popular" back in 2004, made a few posts about something I'd found concerning "Energy misdefined in physics", and was immediately banned as a crackpot. Then in 2006 I reregistered as "Farsight", both our teenage children dropped all their science subjects, and I felt remiss and started to give homework help. The naive questions like What is energy? seemed to be a problem, and the responses from more qualified contributors didn't seem satisfactory. I started to converse about such "basic concepts", and it didn't go down too well, particularly with Doc Al. I made a particular comment saying something like "the speed of light is how fast things happen", and was suspended for a fortnight. There had previously been some jocular talk from Zapperz about "couldn't stay away", and in my own naivity I foolishly registered under different userids both at home and work - more than one because I suffered a cookie wipeout at home and had a new PC imposed on me at work - and then got a permanent ban. I went back on a year or so later as "Voltage" to ask some black hole questions, but was rumbled after a month or so and curtailed. About a year ago I registered afresh as JohnDuffield only to ask if I could come back on - I didn't make any other posts and made it clear I wouldn't until given the OK. However the answer was no, it was a life sentence, and the logon message reads: You have been banned for the following reason: You've had enough chances with enough usernames. If you think your infractions were "minor" then you still don't get it. Date the ban will be lifted: Never.

Can I add that my views on free speech in science were not shaped by this. Instead they were shaped by other experiences, and by communications with others, including professional physicists... one of whom confided that he'd been reliably informed: don't rock the boat or you'll never make full professor. The overall theme seems to be go against the mainstream and you've got problems, so you'd better hang fire until you're emeritus. I'd venture to say that the recent Climategate affair was not a wholly untypical example of "competitive" behaviour by a vested-interest collaboration seeking to impose consensus. I'd say attitudes are hardening against this, see google, and that the situation is now dangerous, as signalled by this recent article.

[James S Saint]

Let's use this as a rough rubric to examine the physics of James S Saint as presented in his other threads. Items that fit him will be bolded.

The Crackpot Index

Now see Carleas, there it goes and by one of your own moderators no less, the "appeal to pejorative judgment to enhance disrepute", a form of "name calling".

And who specifically is it being used to defend? Not Science in general as one is intended to accept, but specifically the famed QM, the Quantum Magi. These are the very people we have to thank for such pseudo-science ("crack-pot" theories) as "M-theory", "string theory", "superstring theory", "4th dimension", "11 dimensional space", "Bubble universes", "Time Travel Theory", "Wormholes to alternate spaces and universes", and dozens more. EVERY ONE of which has ZERO empirical evidence (the supposed foundation of Science) and also can be logically disproven.

Yet these theories coming from a specific cult are considered a part of Science and force fed to children in public schools and media. Oh, but not "God", that theory is just silly. At least the God theory cannot be logically DISproven, ALL of the Quantum Magi theories can be disproven, although one might need to brush up on a little Rational Metaphysics.

Get onto any Science forum and these things are allowed to be discussed as though they had any real foundation at all. And try to argue against them and you are a "crackpot".

Xunzian, thank you for proving my point.

[James S Saint]

don't rock the boat or you'll never make full professor. The overall theme seems to be go against the mainstream and you've got problems, so you'd better hang fire until you're emeritus.

That is exactly my experience. A documentary was made about that very thing showing the condemning evidence. I spoke directly to a person pointed out in the film as one of the "conspirators". While talking to him, not realizing this publication manager was in fact the person in the film, he proved his own guilt of pre-judging and selecting people based on whether they ever spoke out of line. "We have to defend Science against the crackpots and religious people" - his very words. Yet provable "crackpots" are the ones getting the most publicity.

[The Bearded Lady]

Interesting development here with me being in the middle-literally.

[Xunzian]

Given that there is a preponderance of examples of people who have espoused controversial theories and then gone on to achieve tenure, I'm inclined to think that the people complaining about the biases within the system are doing so because they couldn't cut the mustard. Rather than admit their own failures, they've created boogie-men who oppressed them and keep their truth down.

If you can demonstrate it, the community will come around to it. Look at Woese. It took him quite some time to demonstrate that the dominant paradigm was wrong. But, after he provided sufficient evidence his view was accepted and became orthodox. That is one example of many.

But even Woese's "crackpot" theory would only score a 6 on the crackpot index. That is rather different from something reaching into the 30s and beyond . . .

[Mad Man P]

Once again I find myself agreeing with Xun.

Let me just add that scientific theories are mental models that can help us predict and/or gain some insight into what we observe... they are not supposed to be absolute truthes nor perfect representations of reality, but rather the most useful and insightful ideas we can produce to explain the data that we have.

To argue that it's wrong to think of them as absolute truthes seems a bit redundent, as no one seems to be claiming otherwise.
But to argue that because they are not absolute truthes, that we should therefor chuck them out the window or be extra receptive to utterly untested ideas, seems downright stupid to me.
If you happen to have a theory that does a better job of explaining OBSERVABLE phenomena, then that's a hard thing to ignore, as ignoring it would be like shaving with a sharp rock instead of a razor.
However, unless you have a better "mind tool" or "theory", we'd best stick to the ones we have... imperfect as they may be.
As a sharp rock beats bare handed ripping!

[Carleas]

Farsight, I don't know what physicsforums policies are about what merits banning, but if what you say is true they are draconian and probably stifle potentially fruitful discussions. My guess, though, is that they probably get a lot of genuinely disruptive posters insisting that some out-of-mainstream idea is going to revolutionize physics, and that as a result they are hyper-sensitive to removing those posters before they become a problem. The "crackpot index" that Xunzian regretfully employed is further evidence that whatever the frequency of suppression in physics, there is certainly no shortage of people who are just wrong. (I'd also like to clarify that, thankfully for everyone involved, Xunzian is only a temporary moderator while TheStumps is on leave. He is also a drunken old coot who's comments shouldn't be given too much weight. )

As for anecdotes about people being encouraged not to do anything radical, I have a few thoughts. First, they are anecdotes and, even those from Nobel Laureates (Farsight, I assume the second link was supposed to go to the article by Josephson?), while suggestive of a strain of thought within the physics community, are not necessarily evidence that it is a major strain, let alone the predominant strain.

James, none of the theories you propose are part of accepted science. They're all proposed theories to account for various observed phenomena, and though they haven't been disproven, most are as yet untested (mostly because a test has not been devised that is practical and that would distinguish between competing theories). The theories make assumptions, but that is not a problem in science when the assumption is acknowledge, is made about a legitimately undecided question, and is used to make predictions which could potentially be tested.

Nor are these theories being "force fed to children in public schools." Superstring theory, if it mentioned at all, they are mentioned as a footnotes to get kids exciting about interesting questions currently facing science (which is certainly what these theories represent). Anecdotally, my own formal physics education, which began in public school and went up through college-level modern physics, never dealt with any of these theories, except the 4th dimension (when dealing with spacetime in special relativity). Especially considering the recent test-centric shift in public education, I would be shocked if any part of the curriculum in mandatory public education dealt with anything more involved than non-quantum electricity and magnetism.

One thing I think it's important to keep in mind is that it's very easy to come up with radically divergent proposed theories in any discipline of science, and that almost all of them will be wrong. Again, I think the attribution of malice and intentional suppression, even of significant closed-mindedness, doesn't take into account the probable volume of actually inane theories. Even if, for example, the review process for posting on arXiv.org is extremely accurate, and the reviewers are reasonably open to challenges to some foundational tenet of a discipline, the flow of truly useless theories could quite easily be so large that some legitimate proposals would be lost in the deluge. Most of the time, when the scientific bureaucracy attempts to "defend [s]cience against the crackpots," they will be right to do so, because most theories labeled 'crackpot' are truly not scientifically interesting in the least. (This point is to say nothing of theories presented here, rather it is meant generally of the entire landscape of conceivable 'radical' theories)

[James S Saint]

I could present much more extensive evidence to show without much doubt at all that Science is being used as a religion to the populus, but in most cases, such evidence involves extensive thought and education before the conclusion can be drawn. That means that those thoughts are a bit useless on a forum like this.

I considered going through a long explanation as to what it really takes to legitimately consider someone to be paranoid, delusional, or any signs of being an unthinking "crackpot", but that takes too much explanation. Xunzian's "test" can easily be exposed for the fraud it is with such prior education.

But there is one thought that is fairly simple;

If you look at the Stopped Clock Paradox and examine it for logical presentation and evidence of supernatural, magical, or fantasy speculations, does it appear to be presented rationally? Actually I expected that to be what anyone would do as they merely took on the challenge of resolving it. But even without attempting a resolve, does it appear to be irrationally presented? It takes no real physics or higher math to understand it. It sets up a simple situation wherein relativity demands certain results. But if those results are true, then the clocks have to both stop and also not stop. Thus by using relativity, a logical paradox is presented.

For three pages, PhysBang, Calrid, and Xunzian spouted pejoratives concerning me, yet not one shred of thought actually went into the actual setup or following logic posted in the OP other than to say, "SR doesn't work like that, you are "ignorant", "insane", "mentally ill", "crackpot".... Creating ill repute was the obvious aim.

Now if it true that the OP actually was presented in a rational manner, whether a mistake was made or not, where is the excuse for such pejorative explicatives? And who are really the one(s) displaying what appears to be merely religious fanaticism ("crackpotedness")?

But the issue isn't one of personal guilt, rather one of common behavior within the populous. As pointed out by various posters, the populous is "the problem" in that they make things into religions. But they are the ones in charge of the show and spreading the religion of scientism, unless you believe that upper elite managers are keeping them all inline and out of decision making. But if that were the case, how is there so much turmoil on so very many issues regarding corporations, banks, politics, medicine, and just about everything mankind does? Aren't those people "the populous?

[matthatter]

Maybe members could have some engaging off-topic discussions in this thread, but the rational of James' point can be disregarded by pointing out a single very basic flaw, which Carleas has already done--with admirable patience--several times, from several angles.

First:

Einstein's theory of special relativity predicted easily observable, unexpected results from experiments decades before the experiments were possible. The Bible doesn't usefully predict anything.

Very simple.

"Science" can be defined (can be and is) in various ways, but every rational definition of science--every meaning that stresses that which [i]distinguishes it from that which is not science--[/i] is based on (and is only actually understood in the context of the primary goal of) being able to know that (a given condition) A (reliably) results in B.

That is all science is. The only goal/ideal (inherent in its meaning) is acquiring the knowledge necessary to know what reliably (and necessarily) precedes and proceeds some phenomenon.

Man may do/use science with(/in light of) or for their own motivations and values, but if the process (their collecting data, doing experiments and interpreting their conclusions, making hypothesis, etc.) results in the reliable knowledge that A (in some condition) causes B, it is "Science", plain and simple; one's beliefs and values have an affect on what they choose to understand (and predict, manipulate and bring about) with science, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the science (which is judged solely on the value of reliably predicting the necessary causes and/or inevitable effects of some A).

It is a complaint about poorly reasoning individual humans, rather than one about any specific aspect of science itself.

That is exactly my point.

This so clearly demonstrates that James isn't going to take in any valid criticism of his point (in this thread, at least...).

Carleas points out that James is making the mistake of focusing his criticism on "Science"--saying "science does this" and "science does that", when those criticisms don't apply to science; his use(s) of the word ("Science") don't even make sense, given the coherent, communicable meaning of Science (based on a systematic knowledge leading to predictions of phenomenon).

James replies "That is exactly my point", but it wasn't. He alters his arguments slightly afterwards, differentiating an "ideal" of science as the "true" science, but it's clear he only obtained a surface understanding of Carleas' criticisms.

It's ironic...James' point results from his observations of scientists (and other "credible" sources of "science news") making irrational or biased statements, "supporting" them with statements like "science tells us that..." and "based on scientific evidence"--this does happen, and it is a valid criticism (science doesn't "say" anything except B reliably results from conditions A).

However, he suffers from the same problem he is trying to criticize--people say "Science shows... blah blah" when science doesn't show that; it is their own metaphysical story they read from the data. Also "Scientific" is used synonymously with "rational" (not using faith), so that people can call metaphysical stories/myths (of ultimate purpose and absolute morality) "scientifically-supported" "reality", which they believe because A) traditional uses of "faith"/"religion" place their focus on things that can't be observed--deemed "real" regardless of culture and B) science only focuses on things that are.

Basically... the "secular" trend towards values is against (and was intended to be the solution to) the social/collective basing one's actions according to a moral code "given" by a supernatural being (because these derive from texts written in ancient closed societies/cultures that don't apply to a multicultural community--there can't be any social stability/sense of security if people are operating according to radically different value systems).

So, at its base is first an assumption of what is "bad"--treating an unseen (and unfalsifiable) non physical concept as "real", and operating (in a multicultural society) according to that, as well as the ignorance responsible to do so while thinking anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
So then their "good" is "rationality", but as an absolute this only has meaning by it not being the irrationality of focusing on a not physical reality. So "good" is knowing about phenomenon.

The "purpose" of life, many of them then assume, is simply physical existence itself (because that is the good, the NOT imaginary/fantasy/not "real"), so a lot of them live by the value of vague concepts like "natural", or that whatever makes one live longest, or have sex or be "alpha".

The problem is their insisting that anything in the physical world, and scientific facts about it, proves a purpose to any of it, and demonstrates what is right and was is wrong. The "not physical/imaginary" being they fail to take into account is their own interpretation and conceptualization of things.

James could have made a point on how people often misuse the word "science", and end up making the same errors of certainty science is used to prevent, but instead he made the same mistake of using it without a clear, coherent definition. Merely deeming "science" as irrational because a couple people used the word (improperly) that way.

[James S Saint]

madhatter, Carleas, and anyone else, look at the OP. Does it say even one word about Science?

It is a conversation comparison between an atheist and a Christian versus an absolutist and a relativity conformist.

It said nothing at all about what Science is or isn't. It is a display of how the issues concerning Science and the issues concerning religion are parallel or "related".

If you are going to complain about my views on Science in general despite me not really displaying them except by your presumptions, then I am going to have to complain that you stick to the actual topic.