--- Jonathan Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> whilst i initially welcomed the discussion on
> 'honesty in science' and the
> 'decline of science' (which i feel is more aptly
> named - the decling number
> of scientists), it seems to have been derailed and
> no longer relates to the
> real crises i thought we were here to discuss. feel
> free to debate my
> comments.
>
> as a physicist i am only too aware of of the
> problems facing physics and
> science in general, and how both the issues of fewer
> numbers of
> undergraduates may lead either to fewer depts (and
> therefore less research)
> or the intake of students with lower standards than
> were previously accepted
> (and therefore the impact that might have on the
> quality and scope of future
> research), or even possibly both.
>
> but i don't understand these attacks on the honesty
> in science, and the
> supposed teaching of fallacies in physics. how does
> this connect to global
> crises? there seems to be a lot of 'philosophy' and
> little fact at the
> moment. i would prefer to keep some context to these
> discussions and for the
> comments to be made about things in which people
> either have some
> experience/understanding, or can genuinely assert
> their
> accusations/facts/stories.
>
> the internet is a vast resource for both facts and
> myths, and so links are
> easy to come by to back up anything.
>
> the reason for writing this, is that i am finding
> some messages too abstract
> and too irrelevant to what 'I' thought the purpose
> of this list was for? i
> may be wrong of course!
>
> but i would like to discuss facts about real
> physical crises in a manner
> which allows us to talk about the causes of the
> crises and the solutions.
I am afraid you contradict yourself. When I claimed
that a single false premise - the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source - has
destroyed rationality in science, which is some level
of concretness in my view, you replied (personally):
"how does the constancy or not of the speed of light
affect phase transitions in solids, laws of
diffraction for waves, nanotechnology, EM
interactions, strong force, weak force, atomic
structure, zeeman splitting, etc etc?" and left it at
that. Perhaps my claim is an exaggeration but still
what prevents us from removing the false premise and
its absurd corollaries and replacing it with the true
premise (the negation of the false)? Can we do that?
I agree if we can't abstract discussions about honesty
in science etc. are useless. We should simply admit
the death of science is irreversible and leave it at
that.
Pentcho Valev
[log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|