Re: We All failed (regarding the definition of a crackpot)


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1138299397.407902.67770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AllYou! wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138291822.597434.163260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1138285855.213357.220690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > AllYou! wrote:
>> >> "Joe Fischer" <efischer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:7uoft1h61pkfrqapb3rln49g6otrq9o2dg@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> > On Wed, "AllYou!" <Idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Well, when I first came to this forum, I came for a better >> >> >>understanding
>> >> >>of
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>subject matter. In doing so, I quickly found that I was >> >> >>expected to
>> >> >>accept
>> >> >>answers given and not challenge them. That's when that >> >> >>attacks got
>> >> >>personal.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you want a better understanding, read a textbook,
>> >> > and/or read popular expositions like "Was Einstein Right"
>> >> > by Will (I think) and "An Old Man's Toy" by Anthony Zee.
>> >> >
>> >> >>So I found other ways to amuse myself for quite a while, but >> >> >>when I
>> >> >>returned
>> >> >>and
>> >> >>began to engage others here, one of the *regulars* made it a >> >> >>point to
>> >> >>respond
>> >> >>to
>> >> >>seek me out and interject himself into my conversations by >> >> >>calling me a
>> >> >>*crackpot* and advising others not to waste their time with >> >> >>me.
>> >> >
>> >> > There are regulars here that think a casual study >> >> > gives
>> >> > them the knowledge to evaluate, and the subject is so complex
>> >> > (except for the aggravating SR challenges) that no amount
>> >> > of casual study will make an expert.
>> >>
>> >> So what? Let them flail about if you must. And if, purely by >> >> accident,
>> >> they
>> >> stumble upon a subject worthy of reply, then do so. Otherwise, >> >> let them
>> >> alone.
>> >>
>> >> The thing you and some others here don't get is that this is a >> >> PUBLIC,
>> >> unmoderated NG. It's for the general public, and not just the >> >> so-called
>> >> experts. If the experts wanted a forum just for themselves, >> >> there are
>> >> plenty
>> >> of
>> >> places to get it. But what you and your ilk want is a place to >> >> show off
>> >> for
>> >> the
>> >> general public, while attacking those who have the temerity to >> >> challenge
>> >> conventional wisdom. You can't justifiably have it both ways, >> >> yet you
>> >> insist
>> >> on
>> >> doing so.
>> >
>> > That depends. Science *as a process* is fairly well established,
>> > indepedent of the content. That's the reason why the scientific >> > method
>> > is taught pretty much the same way to students of biology, >> > physics,
>> > chemistry, cognitive psychology, environmental science, and so >> > on.
>> >
>> > I agree that there is ample room for discussion on the *content* >> > of
>> > physics, expect on matters of observational fact.
>>
>> Funny you'd say that in a forum dedicated to the pursuit of the >> specific part
>> of
>> science that deals with the notion that no observer can claim any >> priory over
>> any other observer. IOW, there is no reality, no one truth, and >> therefore,
>> no
>> single factual observation.
>
> I believe you have seriously misconstrued what relativity says.
> Relativity says that what is important (the laws of physics) are
> *common* to all observers. It insists that they will *all* observe > the
> same behavior in this sense.

But in another sense, the observations of time and distance which you make of a
series of events is unique to you, and not in common with others. In that
sense, there is no one observable factual distance and time which can be said to
be more valid than another observable distance and time.


Quite right. That's precisely the point.
However, this does not mean that laws of physics that make use of time
and space are similarly affected, and this is a *crucial* distinction.

Be that as it may, it demonstrates that no single observer can claim to have observed a fact which is exclusive to the facts of other observers. Each observer observes their own set of facts, and so to claim that matters of observable facts are not worthy of discussion, as I said, interesting. How can we come to the conclusion that different observations are equally valid if we don't discuss the observations?


Moreover, there is an entirely predictable relationship between the
time and space values that different observers will measure, and this
is also *crucial* information. These predictable relationships become
the facts that are pertinent to science.

And we only arrived at that conclusion by discussing our various observations.



> It also says that there will be some
> quantities that must remain *common* to all observers (for example, > the
> interval and invariant mass). However, it also says that those
> quantities do *not* include some that we had previously assumed > should
> be common to all observers (such as length and time). It is > therefore a
> false generalization to say that relativity says there is *no* > reality,
> *no* one truth, *no* single factual observation. Instead, it > refines
> what belongs in *the* reality, *the* truth, and *the* single > factual
> observations.

Dress it up any way you want, but for you to claim that observations are factual
to the point that there simply cannot be any dispute as to what they are is
arrogance,

I don't agree. This is also part of the scientific process. A single
measurement (observation of fact) does not generally warrant scientific
adoption. However, independent verification through a complementary
observation method then adds an element of sturdiness to the
observation. This sturdiness is nature exhibiting the way it works,
predictably. Arrogance doesn't enter into it; if anything, scientists
are suspicious of their own observations until they have the benefit of
*independent*, *disinteterested* corroboration.

and to extend this arrogance to the point of justifying stalking and
silencing behavior is fanatical.


>> > I disagree that there is ample room for discussion on the >> > effectiveness
>> > of *how* we do science.
>>
>> Even to the point of slandering those who disagree with you?
>>
>
> No, not to the point of slander, imho.

And that's what's been going on here. 

By everyone? Or are you generalizing? Or are you blaming the group for
the actions of a few?


I'm not blaming *the group*.

"Those who engage in such practices obviously believe that science
is fragile, or they have no confidence in the extent of their own knowledge of
science.

Only those who fear freedom of expression attempt to stifle it. "

And

"But the tactics of DVM & Bilge and some others here goes much further than that,
and that's the complaint."

I haven't generalized at all.



>> > Most of the fur that flies around here have to do with >> > "challenges to
>> > conventional wisdom" that have misfired into erroneous claims >> > about
>> > either matters of observational fact or matters of how science >> > should
>> > be done. In such cases, the fur rightfully flies, even in a >> > public
>> > forum. One does not have to be a content expert in science to >> > have due
>> > respect for the process.
>>
>> You forget that this is a PUBLIC forum. Interesting that you >> didn't want to
>> touch the following:
>>
>> I go to the town square which is to be enjoyed by everyone, and I >> claim that
>> time isn't physical. Someone walks by, takes issue with that >> comment, and
>> begins to debate me. Are you saying that it's justifiable to >> slander me to
>> the
>> person who engages me in a debate?
>
> No.
>
>> Are you saying that it's ethically
>> acceptable to attempt to convince that person not to talk to me >> because I'm
>> not
>> qualified to make the statement I did?
>
> No, but it is *certainly* acceptable to indicate that you have not > done
> adequate homework and research on factual matters before making > those
> assertions.

I absolutely agree with this, and would have no issue if that's where it ended.


> If you entered a courtroom (another public forum)

It's not public in the sense that anyone can enter and be heard and begin there
own conversations, or freely join in others. It's a public place where public
business is conducted, but it's not a public forum for public discourse. The
discourse there is very exclusive, and very structured, and only the observation
of the proceedings is public. A public NG is not simply observable to the
public, it's there to be used by the public. 

OK, a public hearing, then, at a town hall meeting. Same rules apply.
Moderators are only needed there to prevent one from shouting over
another -- something that can't really happen here.

Exactly, which is why moderators aren't required at all. Even a town hall meeting has a specific purpose and a specific agenda. I stand by my analogy of a town square. Usenet is a virtual town square. Certainly there are rules of etiquette to be followed, and I did just that until I was attacked. I didn't come to a physics NG to discuss football. I came here to learn, and to challenge if I thought the info I was receiving didn't make sense to me. Again, I have no quarrels if by challenging, or proposing my own theories, they were summarily dismissed or criticized. But I've already listed how the reactions of some go far beyond that, and that's my complaint.


> and made
> assertions that were contrary to established facts, then you would
> certainly be called to the carpet for that, and in a very public > way.


See the above. A court room is not analogous to this situation. This NG does
not exist merely for me to observed, or to wait to be called so that I may
respond to very limited questions.

> It is *also* acceptable in that criticism to suggest that you do > the
> proper homework and research the factual matters before reopening > your
> mouth on the matter.

It certainly is, and that's not my complaint.

>> Are you saying that if on the next day,
>> I'm speaking to someone about football, that because of what I >> said about
>> time,
>> it's justifiable to slander me on that occasion as well?
>>
>> Certainly, because it's a public forum, you can also make whatever >> comments
>> you
>> wish about what I've said. You can even give your opinion about >> my
>> qualifications. But to tell others who wish to engage me that I'm >> not
>> serious
>> in my beliefs and that I'm just trying to be argumentative, and to >> stalk me
>> no
>> matter what other conversations in which I may engage with others, >> even if
>> it's
>> not at all related to science, for the simple purpose of stifling >> me is not
>> morally or ethically justifiable.
>
> It's my opinion you're reading more motives into people's behavior > than
> is justified. I don't know that you can claim that someone follows > you
> around and responds to everything you post is trying to shut you > up. It
> may be that person feels that it is important to correct erroneous
> statements that are made, and finds it useful to monitor someone > who
> makes frequently erroneous statements.


When they get very personal in their criticisms, and they follow me around from
conversation to conversation for the sole purpose of spreading their personal
venom, and they even pursue me to other NGs for that purpose, then it's clear
that they're trying to make my ability to freely converse with others difficult
if not impossible.

I don't know who "they" are to whom you refer, nor do I want to know. I
do think that if you have a particular issue with a particular
participant in the group, that airing that complaint to the group at
large is not particularly constructive. It's sort of like announcing
aloud in a 3rd-grade classroom, "Tommy hit me!" There are certain
guidelines for netiquette that pertain to this group -- some of what
you are complaining about is outside the scope of those guidelines.

I didn't begin this thread, but simply commented on the subject matter. But more than that, I do think that it's helpful to point out aberrant behavior once in a while in the same way that others here will point to certain netiquette. No difference. 

.

Quantcast