Re: History of relativity


"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.02.27.11.19.08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry wrote on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:36:02 +0100:

"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.02.26.10.04.04@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry wrote on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:31:12 +0100:

OK, my impression was correct then. However, it's a bit foggy. To make
sure that no false expectations occur (such as here above!), you could
for example add in bold red capitals something like: "Disclaimer: The
information here below is merely meant as a supplement to the cited
information sources, in order to balance them. Therefore, it is not
meant to be read on its own."
Just my 2 cts. ;-)

Regards,
Harald

Do you think that disclaimer would avoid some of the misguided comments
and insults read here?

Hum... no.

Maybe not... but after such a Perfectly Clear statement, a few of such
comments would certainly look Very Stupid! ;-)

But they look that way without needing my assistance ;-)

Anyway, misguided
comments are certainly not worth of your consideration. Instead, the
general readers *are* worth of your consideration and they would
certainly benefit from such a clear statement. Regretfully, many readers
are entirely ignorant regarding issues of bias and balance. It's little
taught in the education system.

This is a good point, specially since the website is not complete and
readers cannot go to get more information.

I have done some 'disclaimer':

{BLOCKQUOTE
The information here below is merely meant as a balancing overview to the
complex subject of the history of science. Information is based in a
number of formal publications on the subject appeared during last few
years, and it may disagree from older publications or from recent authors
with different views.
}

Thanks, good try... but sorry still not good: people easily confuse
"balancing" with "balanced"! The point is that (at this time) you do not
pretend that your information is balanced by itself, only in addition to
other publications.

Still I want to remark again that authors (historians) with different
views and opinions will get a chance to defend their view in another part
of the website.

Yes that's very good.

The only way to avoid those insults and misguided comments would be
writting just they want read, but then i would falsify the history of
the subject. I will not do that.

I know some topics are debatable and there is no consensus today.

Therefore, a *future* part of the site will contain *invited* works
from recognized expertises from different Schools and way of thinking.

That would certainly be good too!

Readers will read both opinions and will take a decision regarding the
disputable topics.

This policy is also applicable to the rest of sections of website.

*That is by large more accurate, honest, and fair way of work than
usual in academic sites, biased relativity FAQS...*

Be careful with such extreme claims, they suggest a lack of modesty.

Actually science (Goverment funded science) is a very buroucratic and
socialized discipline. I know this for biology, chemistry, and physics at
least. From Physics Today:

{BLOCKQUOTE
In the present system, scientists
feel lots of pressure to follow estab-
lished research programs led by pow-
erful senior scientists.
}

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-6/pdf/vol58no6p56_57.pdf

Interesting!

And this is well reflected in most of academic sites.

Some relativists even have decided to use their academic sites for *ad
hominem* attacks over authors with different views to their own. The page

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html

cites the recent case of *ad hominem* attacks by Renn, Corry, and Stachel
to other historians. And the apologizing note by the Max Planck Institute
of Berlin.

The full note can be read here:

http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/texts/Winterberg-Antwort.html

I had not seen that note. Good of them.

Adittional resources:

Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. 1961. Science, 134,
596-602. Barber, B.

Not in our Nature. 1993. Nature, 361, 488. Campanario, J.M.

Suppressing research data: Methods, context, accountability, and
responses. 1999. Accountability in Research, 6, 333-372. Martin, B.

Suppression of scientific research: Bahramdipity and Nulltiple Scientific
Discoveries. 2001. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 77-104. Sommer, T.J.

Thanks.

Regards,
Harald


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: History of relativity
    ... Do you think that disclaimer would avoid some of the misguided comments ... complex subject of the history of science. ... In the present system, scientists ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Columnist: What we need here is a bias in favour of truth
    ... "Journalism itself is a science, ... science that scientists say is science." ... Great Global Warming Swindle into high school classrooms to "balance" Al ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... I'm basically "at home" with snow and ice. ... Proof is not to be had in science. ... The scientists active in these areas make it their ... climate forcing, in my view. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)