• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

The latest on Global warming.

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser35712

Sometimes science just gets itself hopelessly tied up in knots of self-delusion. Because, after all, people are only human. Even scientists.. and skeptics..
Very rarely it happens, like Wegener's contemporary backlash, but it's rare to find self-delusion nowadays. Papers get retracted all the time because of errors that happened in the experimentation, and the peer review doesn't catch the mistakes. Have any modern examples of knots of self-delusion?
 

DeletedUser35712

Ever do your own homework? Try Google next time instead of simply surrendering to your straw attack addiction. Easy, honest, straightforward. Example, first hit - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/136/3522/1099. See? Establishments exist. They really, really do. Wherever possible. Always have. Now try dealing with this reality as though you actually believed it for a change.
So you have defined the lobbying connections between scientists and politicians as the scientific establishment. Alright. So based on this definition, I agree that scientists have their own political opinions, and they could use their influence to lobby politicians. Politicians also may look for scientists that support their point of view. However, I will say that peer-reviewers do a good job checking papers to see if there are any errors and whatnot, and the body of knowledge derived from science through the journals has not been tainted by political motivations. Scientists can express any opinion they want, but until they publish their assertion in peer-reviewed work on a relevant, reputable academic journal, like any other opinion, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
To suggest that peer reviewers and journal editors are in it for the money and fame requires evidence on your part.
And "To suggest that" employees these days do not at least partly show up for the money is to be an idiot. However, unlike Stephen Longshanks, you did indeed "suggest" exactly that. Here's news: no one actually died and appointed you (nor I) The Decider of what "requires evidence." Kindly climb down from that ridiculously high horse before you wreck yourself.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
Mundane...me? Now that's hilarious. No wonder why I had no clue.
Not you, mundane logical fallacy. Like internet search engines, context really can be your friend. Who knows, with a tiny investment of mental effort perhaps you could even prove coherent some day.. or genuinely funny at least.. some sunny day.. ?
 

DeletedUser35712

And "To suggest that" employees these days do not at least partly show up for the money is to be an idiot. However, unlike Stephen Longshanks, you did indeed "suggest" exactly that.
Stephen suggested that the journal editors were in it for money and fame, and thus reduces the quality of peer-reviewed journal articles, which implies some form of corruption within the journals. Obviously I recognize that journal editors and scientist have salaries, and you've taken my part of my post out of context. (I've decided to edit that post to make what I said more clear and unambiguous). I meant that Stephen needed to provide evidence of an overarching, corrupt force in the scientific community. Let's look at the relevant part of his original statement:
you know how dishonest human beings can be when it comes to money and fame.
Stephen uses the phrase "dishonest human beings can be when it comes to money and fame", which suggests a form of corruption among the scientific community.
Here's news: no one actually died and appointed you (nor I) The Decider of what "requires evidence."
I'm trying to apply skepticism here, which means that there needs to be evidence to back claims.
Kindly climb down from that ridiculously high horse before you wreck yourself.
Is that high horse about applying skepticism, stating things matter-of-fact, avoiding insulting others in this discussion, and avoiding using a condescending tone? Because if that's the case, I'd prefer to stay on that horse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grumblenuts

Member
What was your question then? If electrons are visible to the eye in the first place? I addressed that in my previous post on how nobody knows what an electron looks like, but one can derive from other forms of evidence to make an assertion that electrons exist.
In plainly evident knee-jerk defense of the institution, you've expressed precisely nothing but circular reasoning like a well programmed automaton. One can always "make an assertion"! About anything! That Santa Claus exists! for example - Water is dry! 1 +1 = 3! - Regardless of anything, you, I, or "Science!" has to say about it. That's obvious. Says nothing. Adds nothing.

"Have you ever seen an electron?" "No"? Good! Welcome to the human race!
Why's that so hard for you?
Did JJ Thompson see one? Nope, he didn't either. No one ever has. We are not capable and likely never will be so long as Heisenberg retains any any say in the matter. Does pondering or straightforwardly acknowledging such facts make you feel angry? Sad? Cheated? Defensive? Reactionary? Apparently so. Ever asked yourself why?
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Member
there needs to be evidence to back claims.
Assertions actually made by the person you're supposedly engaging. Does not apply when you simply stuff things into someone else's mouth to argue with yourself about. There's a huge difference. Try to grasp it. You can actually quote the person saying the one, not the other.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
Great example:
Stephen uses the phrase "dishonest human beings can be when it comes to money and fame", which suggests a form of corruption among the scientific community.
"which suggests" is indeed a form of corruption. A cheap shot. Authors may imply things. Readers can only infer them. Granting others reasonable benefit of the doubt means presuming they've said all they meant to say. If Stephen meant to say (or imply) that "the scientific community" was peculiarly corrupt, then the decent presumption is that he would have said so. The decent, potentially productive response is then to address only what they said. To the contrary, you argue with your interpretations ("which suggests") instead... Rinse and repeat..
 

DeletedUser35712

In plainly evident knee-jerk defense of the institution, you've addressed precisely nothing but circular reasoning like a well programmed automaton. One can always "make an assertion"!
Could you explain how this was circular reasoning? I stated that electrons are not visible, but you can find evidence of electrons through other methods such as beams in a cathode tube with magnets experiment, and then cited my source. What have I said that is circular reasoning? I've looked at various websites, and the settled definition is that X is true because of Y, and Y is true because of X. I am unclear about what I said, and how that is circular reasoning. If you can explain, that would be awesome. Is it the terrible wording of "make an assertion"? Or something else?
 

DeletedUser35712

Great example:

"which suggests" is indeed a form of corruption. A cheap shot. Authors may imply things. Readers can only infer them. Granting others reasonable benefit of the doubt means presuming they've said all they meant to say. If Stephen meant to say (or imply) that "the scientific community" was peculiarly corrupt, then the decent presumption is that he would have said so. The decent, potentially productive response is then to address only what they said. To the contrary, you argue with your interpretations ("which suggests") instead... Rinse and repeat..
But I was not arguing over whether the scientific community was peculiarly corrupt in the first place. I was arguing over whether there is corruption in the first place. I reasoned that "dishonest human beings can be when it comes to fame and money", when applied to describe the scientific community, means that the scientific community has some kind of corruption that is tainting the honesty of the institution.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
but it's rare to find self-delusion nowadays.
Really. How many have you witnessed admitting that the electron has never actually been a tangible thing? That it's simply served as a convenient abstraction? A (permanent) placeholder while "we" continue working out what's really responsible for all the related observable* electromagnetic phenomena (seemingly forever)? Oh, it's no matter though. Worry not. Only potentially impacts just about everything.

* - you know, as in seeing, believing, the genuine basis of science..
 

DeletedUser35712

How many have you witnessed admitting that the electron has never actually been a tangible thing?
Unless if you get a ton of electrons rushing into your hand and giving you an electric shock, none of them would say that an electron is tangible. Of course one can't feel an electron through the sense of touch, unless if there is a big enough surge of electrons.
 

DeletedUser35712

Almost a response to the question there.. You can do it. I believe in you. Keep trying!
By one definition, the word tangible means capable of being detected through the sense of touch, so electrons can only be felt as a surge through an electric shock.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
No, photons are the particles of electromagnetic phenomena.
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html
Actually, photons are also simply convenient abstractions. Therefore electrons are not electromagnetic phenomena? Try upping your coherence output?
From your own link:
The amount of energy a photon has can cause it to behave more like a wave, or more like a particle. This is called the "wave-particle duality" of light. It is important to understand that we are not talking about a difference in what light is, but in how it behaves. Low energy photons (such as radio photons) behave more like waves, while higher energy photons (such as X-rays) behave more like particles.
And why it's so danged important that "we are not talking about a difference in what light is"? They'll never tell.. Truth is they still don't know what it is.. Any more than they know what an electron is.. Hwell.. Heavens to Betsy! People might infer they're stupid!

Link inspires another question - Why
"The Electromagnetic Spectrum"
? Why not simply "The Spectrum"? Is there some distinct, competing, other spectrum or what?
 

Grumblenuts

Member
By one definition, the word tangible means capable of being detected through the sense of touch, so electrons can only be felt as a surge through an electric shock.
Oh geez, you're wiggling and waning again.. Go pee and try again..
Reminder: the question specified "an electron". Singular. Not an electrical current. Not a voltage.
As in "an Electron Microscope" a device falsely named to fool people into believing they might see an electron with one.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser35712

As in "an Electron Microscope" a device falsely named to fool people into believing they might see an electron with one.
An electron microscope uses electron beams bouncing off surfaces instead of light, so you can't see electrons with the thing.
Actually, photons are also simply convenient abstractions. Therefore electrons are not electromagnetic phenomena? Try upping your coherence output?
Electrons are not electromagnetic phenomena. How do we know photons exist?
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=29176
the question specified "an electron". Singular. Not an electrical current. Not a voltage.
Alright, singular electrons are not tangible.
And why it's so danged important that "we are not talking about a difference in what light is"? They'll never tell.. Truth is they still don't know what it is.
That part of physics is being researched on. Physicists know what electromagnetic radiation is, the components, its effects, etc., but they don't know why they have two behaviors. Just because they don't know what sliver of details doesn't discredit the idea of photons and electromagnetic radiation.
Why
"The Electromagnetic Spectrum"
? Why not simply "The Spectrum"? Is there some distinct, competing, other spectrum or what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum#Mass_spectrum
https://www.britannica.com/science/spectrum
 

Grumblenuts

Member
Check out this article. Not the only result you get when you google "peer review scandals", by the way.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
Heh, my daughter can definitely relate!

"The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence"
"It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."
She says it's about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.

"Everyone has to take a share of the blame," she argues. "The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes."
Now that's what I'm talking about! Also, entire cultures or species that incessantly promote flash over substance and common, dull necessity. Unfettered wealth over guaranteed minimal health...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top