Our science section...

[xelasnave]

It is so nice to see the word "amateur" added to qualify the requirements of content ...here:thumbsup:.

If one is not a "professional" scientist up until our change an "amatuer" could feel unworthy or could feel inferiour ..as they did not make their living from science and not tested or worthy because they had no experience, education or reason for participation other than sheer interest...they were deemed to feel their contributions unworthy......:sadeyes:

all most reasonable...;)

and so..such that they must sit back and listen to the "professionals" rather than they.. offer any input...

I never felt the need to sit back and have honestly and openly shared my observations and research for the benefit of all:rolleyes:... and moreover to allow all to place their scientific beliefs where they may..

Hopefully the inclusion of "amatuer" may help folk to express their "views" without fear of branding as a crackpot or nit wit... and on this point... what does a mans character and personal oddities have to do with the validity of an idea or its merit... it is so easy to attack the personal oddities... many fail to engage the argument or the premise that is confronting to our established views...but select an attack on character etc...most sad for the person attacking with such a sad excuse for a valid weapon to kill arguement....

the truth in the hands of a fool still remains the truth and many do not like that.... as truth should only be offerred by the like of Mosses or someone of his like...we do not enjoy it to come via what we regard as a fool.

To me it is clear that the scientific estabishement offers rather suspect views of how it may be...parrallel universes..multiple dimensions.dark matter...and the opportunity for particles to "pop" in and "out of" existence seems stupid to me even without the benifit of the math that will make it so... I feel such determinations are profoundly wrong....

and so as an amatuer I can say as much hopefuly without retribution... and maybe the inclusion of " amatuer " can allow a less constricted discussion of matters relating to science with out fear of any door being slammed shut with the closer proclaiming you know zip and that the world of knowlegde and discovery are not available to you to consider.



alex:):):)

[bojan]

Being "Amateur" in certain field of activity means not taking money for carrying out that specified activity.
However, the amateur status is not amnesty for being a crackpot.
Science has its procedures and processes.. or it is not science (amateur or not).

Actually, I disagree with addition of this adjective ("Amateur science"), It does not make much sense since there is not much real "amateur" science to discuss anyway.. And most of us are just bystanders and "voyeurs"..

[iceman]

Maybe the title needs to change. It used to be called "Astronomy Science", and was for talking about "the science of astronomy, space exploration, etc.".

The addition of the word "Amateur" wasn't meant to meant "amateur science" or to encourage people with "out there ideas" - the wording change was meant to be inclusive of amateurs conducting astronomy science - whether it be supernova searches, variable star measurements, etc.

So, this section is for discussion of "Astronomy Science", (the science of astronomy), amateurs contributing to astronomy science, etc.

What's a better title for the sub-forum?

[bird]

Hi Mike, I understand why you made the name change, but now it does read a little bit like "amateur science"..

Maybe the title could go back to "Astronomy Science"... after all, science is science, whether it's done by amateurs or professionals.

cheers, Bird

[bojan]

Actually, the old title was quite OK.
Mentioning only "science" in the title does not exclude amateurs scientists.
Perhaps the title should specify General science.. with one of sub-sub-forums for astronomy science (including amateur?) specifically.

[sjastro]

I'd rephrase it as "General Science".

"Astronomy Science" is far too restrictive as many of the science topics are not astronomy related while "Amateur Science" does conjure up images of crackpot and opinionated ideas.

Regards

Steven

[Robh]

"Space and Science"

Regards, Rob

[marki]

Don't underestimate the value of the crackpot theorist, they set the stage for anyone willing to deconstruct their arguments using solid well considered scientific theory. Comments such as get a science degree or keep out etc are not very useful and if you are truly interested in educating people (the purpose of this forum I believe) you will resist the urge to sledge and champion the science instead. As for the title it is of little relevence, the crackpots will turn up no matter what you call it.

Mark

[renormalised]

Sometimes, though, the "crackpots" come up with some pretty amazing things that actually have some basis in "real science", or could advance "real science"...even if the ideas are coming from totally out of left field.

Some of our best science and greatest discoveries have come from "crackpots".

[Nesti]

Damn Mark, it's actually frightening when I read those words and look at your Avatar picture at the same time.

Feel like I've been abducted or something. :sadeyes:



What about the 'Scientific Method and Engaging Galactic Science'...SMEGS for short? :P

[Nesti]

Quantum Electrodynamics!

[renormalised]

Exactly :) :)

String Theory :)

[sjastro]

What ideas have come out of left field that define QED and String Theory?

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Revolutionary steps usually do follow that progression. Science has a history of crackpots later being recognized as heros.

Creativity does have it's place, without different ideas we just march to a collective drum, with no sense to explore.

To suggest ideas will only come from within the 'scientific elite' is a bit.... well... religious.

I think as long as we discuss the particulars of the theory and evidence, we'll be fine and hopefully inspire some up-comers along the way. Those who have posted so far will probably form the base of that self moderating community.

Astronomy Science sounds good... i didn't think it had to change...

Best,

[renormalised]

The original ideas were thought of as being crackpot (=hard to understand and beyond orthodox)...although if you listen to a lot of physicists, they still think String Theory is left of centre :)

But that could be said for most theories.

[renormalised]

Creativity and science must go hand in hand. Science needs creativity in order to progress and flourish and creativity needs science as another outlet for our mental abilities.

The problem with much of science is that it has become (or can be) elitist and very dogmatic. People with ideas outside of the box and/or outside of their accepted fields usually get roundly castigated and treated like heretics. Woe betide someone with no academic background coming up with something. Yes, it's true that if you don't have a solid background in whatever you're talking about, chances are you won't know what you're on about, but sometimes it takes a fresh mind and new perspective to see things that those who deal in the subject matter miss. Having a critical measure of thought is essential in science, but being dogmatically skeptical about an idea or proposal just because it's not scientific orthodoxy, is plain and stupidly arrogant. Each generation of scientists has the bad habit of thinking that what it thinks it knows is the pinnacle of knowledge. In actual fact, they know less than they did beforehand...simply because the more they know and learn, the more the number and complexity of questions increases. Therefore, they have even more to find out than before!!. It's your best example of an infinite recursive loop in non computational logic :)

Everything has to be weighed on its merits. Not dismissed out of hand because it doesn't sound right or appears "stupid". Even if you voice that opinion openly.

Like you said, openly discuss things and see where that goes...in all cases. With common sense, things should self moderate rather well.

[sjastro]

Crackpot theories by definition are logically inconsistent and doesn't reflect on the complexity and/or unorthodoxy of the theory.
Perhaps the term "revolutionary" is more apt.

BTW welcome back.
Where have you been?

Steven

[Robh]

Carl,
Agree whole-heartedly!
Great to see you back on the forums. :thumbsup:

Regards, Rob.

[marki]

Yes it's good to see you back Carl. Mark perhaps you have been abducted by aliens;):P. Scientific method is of course paramount to any argument presented here. As I said educate not belittle and eradicate.

Mark

[Nesti]

Reckon Carl got a little side-tracked by a FNQ lady.

How are the studies going???

[Nesti]

Reckon you could be right there Mark (#1); haven't felt like I've fitted-in for some time now. LOL

...I was gonna say something about that episode of South Park when Cartman had an alien...never mind!!! :D:lol:

[renormalised]

Yeah, revolutionary is probably better.

Thanks Steven.....been busy with uni work. Next semester is going to be really busy, so I probably won't be on too often...have a pilot project/dissertation to produce. I've also been taking things easy...had been a little off colour for awhile at the end of last year and needed a break.

[renormalised]

I wish :) :P

Keeping me busy...just finished an assignment...early btw, so I have a little time on my hands at present.

[renormalised]

Thanks, Rob :)

[renormalised]

Thanks, Mark :)

He was....I was actually talking to the Greys that abducted him, a couple of weeks ago. The captain and the head doctor on their ship told me that he was a pain in the butt....especially when he used their own anal probe on themselves!!! :):P

:ship2:

[avandonk]

I have been following this discussion. Science is not just plodding logically through the cowpats to get to the understanding of phenomena that are generally far more complex and subtle in their linkages to everything else than we usually understand . It takes rather large intuitive leaps to make major breakthroughs. But then the real hard work begins to show that your 'leap' is real.

The only thing that really works is evidence based science. Conjecture has to be backed by experiment. Generally if a theory cannot predict further effects or consequences that can be observed or tested it is about as good as the existence of the Easter Bunny. A cute theory that a rabbit leaves chicken eggs and chocolate eggs. The only ones that fall for the 'proof' are small children that do not yet know they are being deceived.

What still amazes me that there are people who barely understand just the basics of 'known' mathematics and physics and then glibly expound theories that supposedly 'solve' some of the big problems. There is nothing wrong with expounding these theories but listening and understanding to any valid critical assessment of these so called theories is also part of the game. Blindly ignoring valid criticism is bordering on delusion.

Yes there are 'scientists' with a personal ownership of current paradigms. If the evidence is strong enough it will overcome even these stubborn guardians of the 'truth'.

I don't know how many times I have heard young scientists say 'X by dying has contributed more to his field than he did in all of his life'.

I will stop now.

Alright a joke that a very famous scientist told me a long time ago.

He said to me at some drinking party ' It is not until your prostate is bigger than your brain is when you can be invited to become a member of The Royal Society'

So all you girls out there no matter how smart, you will never qualify!

I just realized you can qualify by having a brain bigger than their combined prostates.

Bert

[Nesti]

I agree with your comment, but only in-part: Conversely, Mathematics can be used at detriment; I have seen many an idea posted as theory in mathematical form however, unless it is observed in natural state or experimentally, it is pure fantasy also. Mathematics, to me, is so plastic that almost anything can be postulated. Any idea in itself, including the supporting mathematics, is pure speculation, until show otherwise.

I once viewed mathematics was an absolute. Now I see it merely as a tool, no different than the language of English or indeed an engineering drawing...it is purely another form of communication of thought.

I know that you already know this; I just wanted to add to the conversation.

Lastly, the term I used above "experimentally" must also be viewed with skeptical analysis, because if something is NOT naturally occurring in nature, why should we offer it validity if created at the hand of man. We can never, ever, truly know if some particle - for instance - ever really existed at the beginning of the universe, even if our theories say it is so and we do see it materialise in a collider somewhere (ie are we entangled with the experiment and deriving a product of our choosing, which the universe has never seen before anyway). Such a particle should only ever be offered a status of 'Possible Particle' because mere existence of entanglement means we are always subject to interference, perhaps even some sort of [dynamic] creative interference.

[higginsdj]

Unfortunately, the 'crackpots' who define original 'real' science breakthroughs are very few and far between. They are far outweighed in number by the true crackpot who will usually mix real science with quasi science (and fantasy) to justify themselves. Unfortunately there are few, perhaps very few people on this list who could come up with real arguments against their science - and in any case, arguing/discussing/reasoning with these people is typically a waste of time in any case!

Cheers

[renormalised]

Good point.

Those crackpots are the likes of Witten, Einstein, Hawking, Tesla etc...they have the ability to look beyond the horizon and see things clearly that most of us can't even contemplate.

[Nesti]

If you're of the opinion that the fruit-cake crack-pots only target the science community; you're mistaken!

I like to think I'm a fairly open minded person but have a read of the TOOL who posted on one of my clips. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2cN2ff_Sec
:help:

He's polite...and so shall I be...but damn!!!

[renormalised]

They target anything they have an opinion on, if you could call their nonsense, opinion :)

[renormalised]

I just posted a comment to that twit on your YouTube vid.

Excellent glider!!!!! :)

Went pretty damn high up there!!!.

[Nesti]

Thanks, just crank up the 'God Botherer' why don't ya...Ozmeisterman.

Nice one!


Anyhow, back to the subject at hand...what's wrong with 'General and Astronomical Science'?

[renormalised]

Yep...back on topic...nothing wrong with the present title for the forum. Seems to cover the gamut of what is being discussed here.

[xelasnave]

I did not mean for my post to suggest that our science section should entertain crackpot ideas:eyepop:... and I know so many of you feel I offer only crackpot ideas as to gravity;) but in my defence I really do not think I make any leaps in logic and only base my comments upon observations I make using a mechanical mechanism to explain what is before me:shrug:...I always seek a tangible and supportable machinery when considering anything.....
I do note that if you disagree with "GR" or "big bang" then the term crack pot is wheeled out immediately and given the weight of credibility both these theories enjoy it is perhaps reasonable to assume anyone who would dare seek an alternative to such solid science is indeed a crack pot...

However any theory or position that needs to defend its right to exist by first destroying the character of the "thinker" rather than to confront and engage the fundamentals of the premise of the hypothisis presented is unfortunate as no doubt it is the idea that is up for review rather than the personality traits of the proposer of the idea under consideration.

I certainly hope the new name for our "science" section works as a place where the real scientist and those with a mere casual interest can discuss ideas and findings they feel may be of interest to others members.

alex:):):)

[shane.mcneil]

Astronomy and General Science seems OK to me. Especially as this website is here to promote Astronomy.

Just my observations re the discussions. I find it is not so much what people say that worries me but it is knowing how qualified they are to say it or what they are basing it on. I tend to read everything critically and to look at multiple sources for verificataion. But I do feel that ideas shouldn't be squashed. Even an erroneaous point can send people down paths that they may not have thought of.

Think criticially is my motto.

Shane

PS "It is good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out." As the wise lady said.

[GeoffW1]

Good Lord Alex, SEE WHAT YOU DID? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[xelasnave]

I thought this may be helpful for folk who have a "theory" or "a belief".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14&feature=related

AND useful when considering if certain ideas before us, that are offerred as cutting edge science, are "playing the game"...

You all know my problems in accepting various "ideas" for example...dark matter..and indeed some "theories" ..my major problem with big bang comes from the presentation of an idea (inflation) as a theory...I can not help feeling these (above) "theories" fail the basic tests set out in this simple coverage of the scientific method.

I have always presented my ideas as ideas and never as "theory" simply because I do recognise the requirements of the scientific method.... the closest I have come to a sucessful prediction relates to the pioneer craft but I always recognised that without the math to predict the slowing rate even my belief they would slow in the universe I suggest can not be rated as more than a guess... I guessed correctly maybe but clearly the anomoly has not yet been resolved and therefore although NASA still have no idea it does not mean I am right as to my suggestion as to why the craft should be expected to slow.

My style suggests I am ignorant of the scientific method and I simply say I bet I respect it more than many....is string theory a scientific theory???? given it fails the tests required past hypothisis????

Anyways I think it is wonderful that we have this section and wonderful that we have wonderful folk who input their knowledge.


alex:):):)