Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:25:05 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

>In article <majif11kfa7k1nc3n2vgn8fgjrir57rqmu@xxxxxxx>,
>Paul Stowe <ps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:51:58 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gregory
>>L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <0q9gf1tgcn809cmpid384unmh50gion9jh@xxxxxxx>,
>>>Paul Stowe <ps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>On 8 Aug 2005 21:00:23 -0700, "Aydin" <gereka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll ask you a question, why does 'science' need protection?
>>>> Is it not, by definition of its methods, self correcting? Thus
>>>> self protecting. The world needs less thought police.
>>>
>>> Science doesn't need protection from scientists following the
>>> methods of science.
>>
>> Right...
>>
>>> But then there's plenty of young Earth creationists, etc., that
>>> go beyond scientific methods. And things like homeopathy that
>>> has a direct impact on people's health, and various Hydrogen
>>> Initiatives with economic and environmental impacts.
>>
>> As P.T. Barnum once said, "there's a sucker born every minute".
>> And, IIRC, "a fool & his money are soon parted" etc., etc., etc...
>>
>> I'm sorry, but if you're of legal age, you have the right to
>> make decisions for yourself. If you choose to think that God
>> 'created' the universe in six days, or, that homeopathic medicine
>> will cure your ills, well, more power to you, that IS your right.
>> Nature & the facts won't bend to suit beliefs. If you're wrong
>> then there are personal consequences that may arise. No-one has
>> the right or a duty to decide that something should not, or must not,
>> censored. And it is censorship more than anything else that is the
>> ultimate in anti-science!
>
> On the other hand, no one has the right or duty to decide that
> rebuttals of irate scientists to cranks should be censored, either.

Of course not. But why irate? That is an emotion usually
engendered but either insecurity and/or arrogant elitism.

Science itself is not threatened and proposing ideas can never
do so.

> You haven't had any police men knocking on your door threatening
> to throw you in jail if you keep writing about that aether stuff,
> have you?

In this discussion I have kept my personal views about the working
theories strictly out of it. But, I am quite sure that many here
would, if they could, do exactly that... Have dissidents arrested
and/or slienced.

> No? Then don't talk to us about censoring. You haven't been
> censored. You've been argued with. It's not the same thing.

As I said, if they 'could' they would. If you're honest, you'll
have to agree with this assessment.

>>> In a sense that's more about protecting people than science.
>>
>> From what? Beliefs, ideas?
>
> From themselves or those in their care dying of curable diseases.

I alway shudder when I see the mentality of "we must protect
people from themselves". The reason should be obvious. There
is an explicit they're too stupid to decide and I'm not in
there!

> From tax dollars spent on initiatives that do more harm than
> good.

Ah, politics...

> From the health hazards of certain foods and vices that people
> can't choose to do something about if they don't have the
> information.

Ah this smacks of wanting to play God.

> From people that not only choose to decide that God created the
> Earth in six days, but that every school kid in the country
> should be taught so.

Pure politics, again. Science cannot be harmed by promoting
fantasies. We do live in a demon haunted world...

> People buy magnets because they're told that they do everything
> from curing arthritis to improving gas mileage. That's their own
> choice, but they might make a different choice if someone reputable
> told them it doesn't work.

It's the Bell Curve, can't happen. There will always be 'suckers'.
That was why the war on poverty was doomed to failure from the
start. Accept it & move on.

>>> And, perhaps, scientific funding.
>>
>> Ah, the bottom line, "follow the money"... True science is NEVER!
>> about money.
>
> That's a fine opinion from someone that can go to the library and
> get other people's research for free. True science is NEVER! about
> the money, except for the true science that wouldn't have been done
> without the money.

Funny, it was very much a gentleman's profession until ~1940.

> I'll bet you can think of a lot of examples. We all can. But, in
> contrast to the magnet peddlers, that money was solicited by
> explaining the virtues of the true science to people that care about
> true science (e.g. taxpayers that are willing to fund a space
> telescope), and not by spreading falsehoods and fraudulent promises.

The phrase, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some
of the people ALL of the time, but you can't fool all of the people
all of the time". But, science & its method is self correcting and
is not threaten by ideas, period.

Paul Stowe


.