One should either know whatever-it-is because one has verified it, or one should be able to express one's assumptions re one's hypothesis. Social beliefs ought to have no part of it. Objective truth is not uncovered by consensus.
«Hey, science community, look: I did an experiment and it disproves X, so everything you build on top of X is flawed too. Start from scratch, please!». Science community: «fck off».
For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav.
Care to elaborate?
These fluctuations of speed of light were found much later, by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav.
The flaw of Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was performed in isolated environment, but tried to measure an external effect.
Imagine that we want to measure atmospheric circulation in the same way: by measuring speed of wind in an closely isolated and insulated room: it's impossible.
However, Michelson-Morley experiment is one of corner stones for theory of Relativity.
> This incongruous result puzzled the physicists of the world until 1905 when Einstein published his theory of relativity. Viewed in the light of Einstein's revolutionary work, the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were not only predictable, but provided experimental confirmation of Einstein's theory.
That the speed of light is constant in vacuum is one of the fundamental assumptions of general relativity. The results of LIGO/VIRGO are so far fully compatible with GR.
I never said you're too stupid to understand. What I said, and maintain, is that you lack a basic understanding of the concepts involved. If you want to have a proper discussion, you need to first properly study general relativity, and refrain from making ridiculous assertions about things you are obviously not an expert on.
If we want to predict what the camera attached to a rocket moving along a complex trajectory at a speed close to the speed of light will see, we need a powerful theory that can predict the image and characteristics of other physical processes that this camera will observe. The Theory of Relativity and the Special Theory of Relativity can predict these characteristics. However, the Theory of Relativity doesn't explain the «why» behind this happening.
If we consider the theory of the ether, the speed of light is the speed of wave propagation in the medium, which is itself determined by the speed of an interaction between particles in this medium (which is usually higher than the speed of wave itself).
In the case of experiments like LIGO/Virgo or NANOgrav, the speed of light changes because gravitational waves affect the medium.
If we take General Relativity (GR), the speed of light is the ultimate speed because Einstein stated so.
In the case of LIGO/Virgo experiments, the speed of light remains constant because the speed of light is the constant, as stated by Einstein, and space and time stretch in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th dimensions, which leads to light moving slower, although the speed of light itself doesn't change. :-/
The reason MM failed to show that light changes speed is because we’re not moving through the aether, but are ourselves aether stuff — and so our own perspective gets equally warped. Since us and the light both change with the relative motion, we can’t see the change.
> Michelson-Morley experiment found no changes in speed of light at all. Nothing. Zero fluctuations.
The MM experiment aimed to observe a predicted effect of the theory of luminiferous aether, which would have enabled measuring the Earth's speed relative to a canonical reference frame (the aether). It was sufficiently precise to observe that predicted effect but did not observe it, which provided strong evidence that the aether theory was wrong.
Finding that any variation in the propagation of light was too small to be detected by their instruments (and too small to be consistent with aether theory) is not the same as finding that it's exactly zero.
> These fluctuations of speed of light were found much later, by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav.
It's not the same fluctuations though: these experiments found much smaller fluctuations than MM looked for, from a different effect. They're not even (understood to be) fluctuations in c, but in the shape of space.
> The flaw of Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was performed in isolated environment, but tried to measure an external effect.
The later interferometer experiments (LIGO and VIRGO) are conceptually very similar to the original MM experiment. The environment is not fundamentally different, and on the contrary LIGO and VIRGO are better isolated (against ordinary vibrations: we don't know any way to isolate an experiment from gravitational waves). They're just much larger and more precise, which is why they can observe the much smaller effect of gravitational waves.
> However, Michelson-Morley experiment is one of corner stones for theory of Relativity.
Yes, but the effects observed by LIGO and VIRGO are predicted by general relativity, which is what inspired scientists to carry out those experiments. As far as I know, they are consistent with GR to the extent that LIGO and VIRGO have measured them.
MM failed to observe effects predicted by theory of STATIC luminiferous aether. It looks like there is no absolute aether frame (which will be strange to have in the infinite Universe).
> They're just much larger and more precise, which is why they can observe the much smaller effect of gravitational waves.
Yep. We can discard MM experiment now, because LIGO/Virgo is much better.
If we want to measure wind at high altitude, but we put our measurement tool deep and isolated it well, with high enough precision, we will be able to measure distant earthquakes and nuclear explosions. No luck with wind, of course.
To catch the wind, we need something like NANOgrav, but at much smaller scale at high orbit around Earth. Luckily, we have large number of GPS satellites with high-precision clocks in the sky: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-017-0686-6 . I see strong annual signal here.
> Yes, but the effects observed by LIGO and VIRGO are predicted by general relativity
This doesn't make GR unique. Other theories can predict this too. It's just waves in a medium. However, GR is abstract theory, which lacks explanation power. Lack of explanation causes lack of understanding.
This happened several times, for example when Einstein was proven right about the Theory of Relativity, showing that Newton's Laws of Motion were not precisely correct. The physics community eventually found out that Newton's Laws were a really good approximation of the better theory under conditions we experience on Earth (if you plug numbers at human scale to the Theory of Relativity, the equations actually approximate really closely to Newton's Equations which is truly remarkable - you can do it yourself as the Maths are not too complicated at all - I did this in Physics 101, first year undergrad Major in Physics), so they were not just dismissed, but continue to be used to this day as they are extremely successful in predicting the movement of bodies at human scale.
Your comparison with Michelson-Morley VS LIGO shows you don't really comprehend what you're saying, as all LIGO did was show that Gravitational waves can distort space-time to an extremely small degree (compared to astronomical measurements), which does not prove at all that light speed is not constant in all directions - and it boggles my mind why you think it does! You could make the same incorrect argument by mentioning how light speed is not the same in different materials?? The fact that space-time is distorted at places (including near large bodies as well - even ignoring gravitational waves) just shows that light can have different speeds when you consider such distortions - it feels stupid having to even say this out loud - but no, that doesn't prove light speed is not constant in a vacuum that is free of such space-time distortions!
Space-time is not a physical term, it's framebuffer. You are talking about mathematical model. Can you switch to physic, please?
Switch from the model (heights field) to the physics (stone) language, please.
Look at hydrodynamic quantum analogs. You will see, that many quantum effects, maybe even all of them, can be explained by waves, in therms of Newtonian physics. For example, the double slit experiment can be explained by self-interference of then pilot wave.
When I can see quantum effects with my own eyes, all this mumbo-yumbo about waves of probability, half-dead cats, space-time bending, etc. don't work on me anymore. It's like tales about 4 elephants when I see round Earth in a porthole.
Religion is never wrong, faith is believing without evidence, and religion doesn't test it claims
You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science
You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science.
Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science.
The majority of scientists believed something through experiments that were faulty or limited data then later turned out to be wrong? That's how it works, science isn't perfect but what's the alternative?
If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action
I’m critical because it’s systemic. And made in the name of science. For all intents and purposes, this is the science we’re subjugated to.
> You're mad because some scientist committed fraud?
Again, critical because it’s systemic and people have lost their jobs, entire families had to move regions because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct. The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see.
Good, I would hope the government basis it decisions on science.
"people have lost their jobs,"
I assume you mean people who didn't get vaccinated. That's their decision, a decision based on misinformation, emotions, or politics.
"because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct"
What what were his doubts based on? Just because he later turned out to be right means nothing unless his claims were based on something substantial.
"The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see."
Covid killed 1.2 million people in the US. Your right wing self inflicted suffering over vaccines means nothing compared to this.
Science can be perfectly faked. Mostly happens when people get over the top about it.
Trying putting uppercase “You guys killed 1.2m people, you murderers”. If I find a single bike accident among the number you shamed me with, then all your accusation falls in shambles.
Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming.
Even if 50% of those deaths are incorrect the number is massive. I'm relaying stasticis by saying I'm screaming you're trying to counter my argument with an unrelated attack.
"Science can be perfectly faked"
Yes it can, is that happened here? Did doctors around the county all decide to lie for the purpose of?
What evidence do you have it's fake?
To imagine an extreme case, Nature could start publishing theology papers instead of physics and biology - in that case, an important part of the scientific establishment would have stopped doing actual science. But, based on reputation, many people would keep believing what Nature prints and would still point to the new theology articles as "scientists have discovered that [...]".
This is what people mean when they say science is becoming a religion: not that the concept of what science is changing, but that certain parts of the scientific establishment are not doing science per se but that their conclusions are still regarded as scientific based on past reputation.
A specific example would be someone like Michio Kaku. He is nominally a scientist, and is often interviewed as a scientist and many believe he is there to present what science says. But he is in fact just some public speaker/sci-fi author who last practiced science decades ago and now revels in speculation and exaggeration. He is essentially a priest of scientism.
This isn't a thing. There's no unified organization of science, therefore making generalizations about it ss wrong. It would be just as wrong as saying "Fast food restaurants need to..", "The media always ...", "Black people should stop...".
----------
This is what people mean when they say science is becoming a religion: not that the concept of what science is changing, but that certain parts of the scientific establishment are not doing science per se but that their conclusions are still regarded as scientific based on past reputation.
That's not the fault of science that's the fault of either the SPECIFIC establishments or the person. Reputation is based on past actions like truthfulness, admitting fault, etc. Not only the specific of what they did. If a company made pizza and had a reputation for quality then decided to sell bagels is it wrong of me to trust the quality? If Nature had a good reputation with scientific papers and started publishing theology papers, then why is it wrong to trust them?
* the new theology articles as "scientists have discovered that [...]".*
I don't even get this example. If a theology article starts with that sentence then that's kinda weird, I would have to read more but say the article is just fraudulent or uses "science" to justify something. That's the fault of Nature for publishing it and the author for writing it. It has nothing to do with "science" (a process) or other "scientific establishments" (since they aren't a single organization).
----------
A specific example would be someone like Michio Kaku. He is nominally a scientist, and is often interviewed as a scientist and many believe he is there to present what science says. But he is in fact just some public speaker/sci-fi author who last practiced science decades ago and now revels in speculation and exaggeration. He is essentially a priest of scientism.
According to Wikipedia he seems to have done a great deal of scientific work -
"Between 1970 and 2000, Kaku had papers published in physics journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics.[13] In 1974, Kaku and Prof. Keiji Kikkawa of Osaka University co-authored the first papers describing string theory in a field form.[14] Kaku is the author of several textbooks on string theory and quantum field theory. An explicit description of the second-quantization of the light-cone string was given by Kaku and Keiji Kikkawa.[15][16]"
Is there some expiration on calling yourself a scientist? It looks like this was his life's work. Like if stop researching physics for a month then spoke on a podcast where I was called a physicist is that deceptive? I could understand if someone never did any research and was being presented as a scientist but hasn't this person earned that title? Finally if someone is a scientist and a person trusts them explicitly because of that then that's wrong but that's the fault of the person.
now revels in speculation and exaggeration
I don't know anything about him, these are subjective assessments, but assuming they are true: If he speculates as part of a discussion and it's obvious or he makes it clear that it's speculation that's not a bad thing. If he exaggerates then he shouldn't, that's a personal flaw that doesn't reflect on "science" or "scientific establishments"
He's also not a priest. The definition of a priest: "a person whose office it is to perform religious rites, and especially to make sacrificial offerings."
You are trying to take words related to religion, generalize them, then using that more general definition apply it to a scientist to claim that science is a religion. Yes, we all like to spice up our sentences : "I worship pizza" "He's the priest of this fraternity". Is the fraternity a religion now? Is Pizza my new God? (it is actually) Taylor Swift isn't a religion because her fans worship her and go to mass gatherings where she performs """rituals"""
Mostly I feel like you are trying to show that incorrect usage of terms, personal flaws, and companies that misuse titles and/or reputation make science a religion because there are people who explicitly trust science, like some do with religion. Let's address that:
--------------------------------------
"Trust the science"
Let's say you need to answer a question or make a decision about something you can research. Unless you are an expert in that field and/or are willing to put massive amounts of time learning and doing your own research, you should just trust what the majority of the people in that field agree on (i.e. trust the science). Why? Because what's the alternative?
If you want to call this worship, fine, but don't claim it's like a religion. Religions don't test their truths/claims and they don't think you should test them. They want you to have faith AND faith is the only option.
So you might say something like "oh but you have faith those scientists had the right data, weren't lying etc etc"
You can do your own research, read their papers, run your own tests if you wanted to. Yes it's difficult and for many nearly impossible but the point it the information exists. The evidence to backup scientific claims exists. If someone makes a claims but lied about the evidence, that's not science. If they want you to believe their claim, have no evidence, and there's no way to test the claim, that's a religion.
Sorry this was so long
You really want to tell me that you never heard something along the lines of "Science says ..." or "the science"? Not buying it. The usage of science in mass media is a different one than the one you want to hammer home.
> Finally it's not a game of definitions because science has a specific meaning. You can't just change that meaning (even if you add a captial S) then be critical about it.
This is mostly self-soothing I suppose. Just denying reality outright.
> You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science
Motte and bailey. You just mean the hard definition. As long as you deny that a soft definition exists, it's a bit hard to argue with you.
> You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science.
You should look up motte and bailey maybe. You seemingly don't know it, but you're playing that fallacy. (Also: stop projecting)
> Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science.
So you want to tell me that the actual scientific process in action has nothing to do with science.
> If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action
Who makes the election of what the majority of people in a field say? That's where the mass media (that is not one organization) comes into play. This is basically The Science™ meme in action.
That is complete rubbish. There are plenty of examples from East and West. In certain parts of China, rival monasteries would have a throwdown over theology, hold a debate, and the losing monastery would convert.
The difference is that Theology can take personal experience as a logical prior, and work from there. Often that is the grappling hook thrown over a chasm which allows a bridge to be built to a new level of understanding. A bit like the way that infinitesimals are used as a device in the derivation of calculus.
Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it.
"Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it."
Why?
One definition of science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
If you want to understand something about the world and you can do it using science why would you use any other method.
"Because it has meaning to me."
Excuse the bluntness but so? and why? This doesn't answer my question about the value and why you should use it.
- I live in X city and I get robbed at gunpoint, is this city unsafe?
- I buy a new Toyota Corolla, it breaks down, does that mean the Corolla is a unreliable car?
- I go to Vermont and I decide to go hiking. The trail I picked is muddy, it's boring, and there are bugs everywhere. Is this a good place to hike?
Wrong conclusions but harmless you might say, how about:
I'm walking in a mall and I see a Black person steal a purse, it's the first crime I've ever witnessed. Are Black people dangerous?
My sister is raped by a Chinese person and my uncle tells me a Chinese person stole his mobile phone. Are Chinese people criminals?
Of course when it comes to situations that only involve you or your direct interaction with a unique situation that makes sense. Taste, smells, sexual attraction, friendship, even your relationship to God. However for most? situations it's not reliable.
Theological differences are interpretations.