Quote:
|
Its most unbecoming to try and misrepresent what I’m saying by labelling it “conspiracy theory”. I don’t think that scientists conspire with each other to promote an established view. Rather I think what happens is that those who’ve worked in a field for a time (and I’m not just talking about scientists) have a tendency to become very impressed with themselves and what they know (and not sufficiently impressed with what they don’t know) and consequently become unduly resistant to new ideas, especially if they adjudge the proponents of those new ideas to be mere interlopers.
|
"Yes we know all about the paradoxes and the particle accelerators that "demonstrate" conclusively that its "impossible". You know, the establishment in the science community has been talking like this for centuries and quite frankly its always gotten in the way of good science."
"No it does nothing of the kind. It just repeats the old "we know best" line. It brings me in mind of what poor old Faraday must have gone through. "
Unless you can support these claims (particularly that the science community operates on a hierarchical basis instead of debate and consensus through peer review) then I cannot interpret it in any other way.
Quote:
|
Your revised remark is no better then the first. I don’t think science or the scientific method would ever discourage the contemplation of alternative theories regardless of what earlier observations or experimentation may say. That’s why the book is never closed, even on such respected theories as Evolution and Relativity.
|
The prompt for alternative theories is through experimentation and observation. In the context of Carl's comments there is no obvious reason to theorize why the speed of light in a vacuum is not the upper limit given that experiment and observation over 300 years have shown otherwise.
Steven