[Phys-L] Re: A Sceptical View of Science

[Pentcho Valev <valevp@BAS.BG>]

See the beginning of Chapter 4:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"Marilyn vos Savant is listed in the "Guinness Book of World Records" under
highest IQ and publishes an "Ask Marilyn" column in the Sunday Newspaper
Magazine PARADE. In the May 22, 1988 issue, Jennifer W. Webster of Slidell,
La. asks:
What one discovery or event would prove all or most of modern scientific
theory wrong?
Marilyn replies:
Here's one of each. If the speed of light were discovered not to be a
constant, modern scientific theory would be devastated. And if a divine
creation could be proved to have occurred, modern scientists would be
devastated.
I suspect that Marilyn has hit the nail on the head. Einstein's special
relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in
space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern
physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics
becomes an elaborate farce!"

Curious isn't it? But not VERY curious since the initiated have known about
the falsity of the second postulate for quite a long time. The fundamental
problem the initiated have been trying to resolve for the last 20 or so
years is: How do I get rid of Einsteinian idiocy without losing my salary?
Since the same people are dominant in education, that is a fundamental
problem of education as well.

Pentcho Valev




On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:58:04 -0500, Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
wrote:

> At 01:55 AM 6/18/2005,  Pentcho Valev, you wrote:
>
> > Compare Bryan Wallace's prediction:
> >
> > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
> >
> > "I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant
> > abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now
> > consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of
> > a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."
> > ///
> > Pentcho Valev
>
> Quite so.
>
> More from www.ekkehard-friebe.de - a sceptical web presence:
>
> In a paper on self-deception in science, Michael J. Mahoney of
> the University of California at Santa Barbara described the
> results of a field trial in which a group of 30 Ph.D. scientists
> were given 10 minutes to find the rule used to construct a
> sequence of three numbers, 2,4,6, by making up new sequences,
>  inquiring whether they obeyed the same rule, and then
> announcing (or "publishing") what they concluded the rule
> to be when they felt sufficiently confident.
>
> The results obtained by the scientists were compared to those
>  achieved by a control group of 15 Protestant ministers.
> Analysis showed that the ministers conducted two to three
> times more experiments for every hypothesis that they put
> forward, were more than three times slower in "publishing"
> their first hypothesis, and were only about half as likely as
> the scientists to return to a hypothesis that had already
> been disconfirmed. "
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> It is amusing to draw conclusions from this sort of 10 minute
> model of scientific research/publishing activity, in the spirit
> of the game.
>
> 1) Scientists time rate of paper production was
> 1 per time unit compared with non-scientists <0.33 per unit time.
>
> 2) Non-scientists published disconfirmed ("suspect") papers
> at a time rate  50% higher than scientists output.
>
> 3) Non-scientists needed 2.5 experiments per experimental
>  hypothesis  compared to each experiment used in a
> scientist's hypothesis.
>
> Perhaps Pentcho has been taking scientists in general, and physicists in
> particular, entirely too seriously,   rather than as
> the fallible folks they undoubtedly are?
>
> :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l