How do we know? - according to some scientists

[icosaface]

[icosaface]

chem 1



chem 2



chem 3



chem 4

[thokling]

Interesting that, if I read the title of this thread correctly, there are scientists who disagree with the details in these videos. From what I've read, most of the data have been demonstrated in labs and have thus been proven to be factual in terms of physical laws.

[Easy Skanking]

(01-23-2012 03:02 PM)thokling Wrote:  ... most of the data have been demonstrated in labs and have thus been proven to be factual in terms of physical laws.

At least as far as they understand the physical laws. That is the big issue. There are holes in conventional physics big enough to drive the 95% of the universe we don't understand through. Conventional science is just as dogmatic and takes as many things on faith as religion.

[thokling]

(01-23-2012 11:08 PM)Easy Skanking Wrote:  There are holes in conventional physics big enough to drive the 95% of the universe we don't understand through. Conventional science is just as dogmatic and takes as many things on faith as religion.

Are you referring to the standard model with the use of the word "conventional"? The only things taken on faith involve our use of observation to separate fact from theory, and mathematics to help describe (and tie together) science's understanding of how reality work.

[Easy Skanking]

(01-24-2012 06:04 AM)thokling Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:08 PM)Easy Skanking Wrote:  There are holes in conventional physics big enough to drive the 95% of the universe we don't understand through. Conventional science is just as dogmatic and takes as many things on faith as religion.

Are you referring to the standard model with the use of the word "conventional"? The only things taken on faith involve our use of observation to separate fact from theory, and mathematics to help describe (and tie together) science's understanding of how reality work.

By conventional, I mean what is accepted in the mainstream. It involves more than the standard model as it changes all the time.

Since you brought it up specifically, there is a giant leap of faith in the standard model at the very beginning called the Big Bang. To paraphrase Terrence McKenna, whereas religion takes it's big miracle and leap of faith at the end (death), science takes its miracle and leap of faith at the beginning and runs with it. hehe

Here is another item of faith in the standard model: Where does the charge of an electron come from?

No one has put forth an answer that conventional science recognizes as correct and fits their equations. They just say that "it is" and run from there.
Sounds like faith to me.

Now, don't get me wrong about the field of science or the scientific method. That's where I was trained and what I start from. It's the dogma and accepting things on faith in conventional science that drives me nuts. I do get kind of sensitive about it considering the good that could have been done for humanity if not for this adherence to leaps of faith and discarding anything to do with their current model or that is too complex. As an example is the Lorentz Contractions in electromagnetics. Because Lorentz decided Maxwell's Quaternion equations were too difficult and that the fourth variable didn't have an apparent effect of matter, he discarded all of the fundamental field manipulations that provide anti-gravity, limitless and clean power and direct manipulation of matter.

[thokling]

(01-24-2012 06:56 AM)Easy Skanking Wrote:  By conventional, I mean what is accepted in the mainstream. It involves more than the standard model as it changes all the time.

No one has put forth an answer that conventional science recognizes as correct and fits their equations. They just say that "it is" and run from there. Sounds like faith to me.

It's the dogma and accepting things on faith in conventional science that drives me nuts. I do get kind of sensitive about it considering the good that could have been done for humanity if not for this adherence to leaps of faith and discarding anything to do with their current model or that is too complex.

(Some good material snipped for sake of brevity.)

I would dare to suggest the concern is over "what is accepted" as opposed to "what is known". I have witnessed behaviours in people wherein they would, rather than admit they don't know something, make something up that seems easy to digest or simply believe what everyone else believes. Some of this appears to be linked to fears of repercussion - sheep don't wanna rock the boat, so they'll even accept outright lies than challenge the status quo.

Just because someone's trained in science doesn't mean that they follow a strict scientific methodology as a philosophical foundation.

I've always viewed these leaps of faith, as an amateur "scientist", as intermediary steps to true understanding. Those people (scientists and otherwise) who honestly and earnestly act to seek truth, rather than seek what's convenient, are far more admirable in my eyes.

Me, I began my training at a very young age in computing and, more specifically, programming. So my perspective leans toward understanding the mechanics of systems, directly applying and testing theories along the process. Very scientific, but I've had no training in science beyond what I learned in formal schooling.

I wonder how many technologies we humans have passed up in favour of "the easy way out."