/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10057767]

>Science can only evolve by constant questioning of the status quo and shifting paradigms.

>This is the only reason current science exists.

>Any questioning of status quo is treated in this board, by media and most politicians and laypeople as ridiculous and stupid.

[Anonymous No.10057770]

>>10057767
Science advances one funeral at a time.

[Anonymous No.10057779]

>>10057767
To "question" something you first need to have a real substantive understanding of what you're attempting to question which, surprisingly, most in fact "questioners" do not

[Anonymous No.10057781]

>>10057767
>questioning of status quo
Is that what you call making baseless claims based on a youtube video you saw that's predicated on a fundemental ignorance of the topic you're talking about?
Because that's not called "questioning the status quo," that's just being a normal boring brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10057785]

>>10057779
>>10057781

Boltzmann couldn't convince any of his contemporaries of his ideas of statistical mechanics and killed himself.

Also it should be doubly easy to disprove brainlets with simple demonstrations. Why even use the "you're a brainlet" card in a scientific environment?

[Anonymous No.10057791]

>>10057785
Because you're intent is obviously to be an ebin shitposting troll, and aren't interested in actually learning anything or even articulating an argument.
Why should anyone waste their time taking your dudeweedlmao conspiracy seriously?

[Anonymous No.10057799]

>>10057785
His mental health problems are usually blamed on his stress yes, but he mantained a high position as a respected physicists at the time. It was just a heated debate and there weren't many models to test. In hindsight, everything looks simple, but his postulates were just to revolutionary for people to accept. And again, he killing himself cannot be soley attributed to the reaction of his peers, and there's no way of knowing why it happened.

Obviously academia is filled with fucking humans, and whatever idealized view of it is going to be far from what happens and so yes, a people are going to be immoral, insecure, dogmatic and what ever and there are always sad cases you can look from.

That's really different from pointing out some "flaws" in a theory and categorically reject an explanation while reaching to an opposite conclusion. And worse when the "flaws" come from believing a simplistic and lay view is enough to undrstand the models. There is criticism for a lot of shir in academia, but it's not just
>muh vaccines
>muh CC propaganda
>muh relativity bullshit
Ffs look at the article of the EPR paradox, the criticism obviously was done through the languange and means of the theory they want to criticise, and not just some hand wavy shit.

[Anonymous No.10057804]

I remember back in high school when my chemistry teacher would start conversations about physics with me after class and then change the subject and scold me for confusing the class when I said something he didn't know about and he remembered that he's a chemistry teacher and doesn't, nor is expected to know jack shit about anything smaller than an atom. Not to act like I knew everything when I was 15, I was still a little shit, but this still pisses me off to no end.

[Anonymous No.10057813]

>>10057799
>>10057791

Would you rather live in a world where no one questions experts, in a world where only experts question experts, or in a world where everyone questions everyone?

I believe the third option is the only one honest answer for science. No matter how stupid some claim is, if a scientific model is sound it should be able to refute it, or test upon it.

If someone is convinced they can create a perpetuum-mobile and "doesn't believe" thermodynamics, what do you propose? We try to explain the theory again with different words? We let him do his own tests and come to conclusions? We just laugh at him?

I feel that any option besides laughing can generally benefit science. The tests can create interesting developments, the reformulation of ideas can be useful for future generations. The fact we learn quantum mechanics as we do now is due to decades of reformulations of the wording. Same goes for calculus, or several other aspects of even the hardest of sciences.

Laughing at questions and calling people stupid is unscientific, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.10057825]

>>10057813
All right if you're so smart, why doesn't relativity explain the absence of blue kangaroos? There are no blue kangaroos but relativity can't explain that fact, so I say relativistic blue shift is wrong, and the latest observations of it are faked.

[Anonymous No.10057831]

>>10057813
Is it too much to ask that these perpetual motion device cranks demonstrate a working model that goes against all to date experimental evidence of the laws of thermodynamics before opening their mouths on a subject they have no qualifications in?

[Anonymous No.10057835]

>>10057813
You whole argument assumes that experts don't engage with people who question sciene. They do, but there's usually nothing to discuss and the retards who are adamant avout it usually are motivated through some weird movement like antivaxxers. These sort of power people give to academia is ridiculous, you can read all the articles and texts at this day on age. You are just getting mad at no one. If someone comes with a great counter theory and evidence for it, it obviously will get noticed, but there's a reason why usually they ask you to sutdy a big chunk of your life, to deeply understand how the development of modern theories came to be, which massively increases your chances of getting an original idea, considering that a lot of people dedicate their life to research every single possibility. So it's highly unlikely some dumb boomer playing with magenta on his garage is going tl get free energy.

[Anonymous No.10057838]

>>10057767
I know. It's disgusting and very tiring. Planck famously said "progress happens one funeral at a time."

No good reason for it. Most people are just made to be trash, and quickly accept it.

[Anonymous No.10057845]

>>10057825

I'll treat your post as if it was a smart child asking me this, and not you randomly wanting to troll me:

The blue in 'blue'shift doesn't refer to the color of animals (which is largely governed by genetics and by the specific properties of your vision cells), but rather to the Doppler effect on light frequencies.

If you could accelerate a Kangaroo enough without disintegrating it and measure radiation being emitted by its body you could probably observe the said shifts with the right tools.

So as you see you can't question the validity of blueshift measurements by using Kangaroos. You could try revisiting the blueshift experiments and see if they had any methodological flaws to make your question more specific.

[Anonymous No.10057849]

>>10057845
My point was that most of these "criticisms" demonstrate such a vast ignorance of the thing they are actually criticizing that scientists simply don't have the time to give these people the equivalent of a year's worth of lectures just to get them up to speed on the basics they need to even participate in the conversation. The only sensible response is then "you don't know enough to participate in this conversation, go read a book and come back when you've learned something".

[Anonymous No.10057851]

>>10057838
/thread
Everyone who disagrees is a fedora-tipper.

[Anonymous No.10057862]

>>10057835

I am not a health science expert. Imagine I take a medicine and believe it caused a negative effect not listed on the common side effects.

Tell me what I am supposed to do? Never question anything?

The only reason they catch scientific misconduct in medical research is usually because non-experts voice their concerns.

[Anonymous No.10057898]

"I may not have any evidence for my position, but at least I'm open-minded enough to ignore the science."

[Anonymous No.10057914]

>>10057767
You fucking retard, said "constant questioning" ALWAYS implies evidence of the contrary. Let's say Newtonian physics' views on gravity, Minkowsky didn't just say "Newton is wrong, some fairy tale book written 2000 years ago told me so!". No, instead he came up with mathematical proof to back up his theory of the spacetime continuum.

Stop equating literal retards who question science because of some contradictory fairy tale book written long ago to actual scientists who question the status quo with evidence and data.

[Anonymous No.10057940]

>>10057767
These people are not ridiculed becausw they question the status quo, they are ridiculed because they do so in retarded and unproductive ways, proving only that they don't know what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10058172]

>>10057940
And yet the notion that RF can be biologically active at athermal levels is met with immediate ridicule and extreme resistance no matter what evidence is presented. In fact, the evidence isn't even read before the shit talking begins. I had a number of papers uploaded to mediafire, which tracks number of downloads. People were complaining about things throughout an entire thread that they never even downloaded.

Didn't skim it. Didn't read the intro. Didn't read the cover. Didn't even download it. What does that tell you? Aren't people interested in a causative factor in all these modern diseases, and if used right, a new treatment modality? It's clear, they're just responding mechanically and in line with the cultural nature.

if (microwave)
response = conspiracy() | pseudoscience();

You could make some of these people one-liners. It really is too bad, and that complacency is already having disastrous consequences.

[Anonymous No.10058182]

>>10058172
>cultural nature
narrative*

[Anonymous No.10058315]

>>10057767
its perfectly valid to propose alternative hypotheses that experimental evidence. Thats why guys like Einstein did. He looked at Newton's explanations and came up with a better and more accurate way to explain the evidence. That sort of thing is encouraged.

What you are bitching about is that no one takes your flat earth, creationist, conspiracy tard threads seriously.

[Anonymous No.10058325]

>>10058315
>its perfectly valid to propose alternative hypotheses that experimental evidence. Thats why guys like Einstein did.

its perfectly valid to propose alternative hypotheses that explain experimental evidence. That's what guys like Einstein did.

yep its time to get some shut eye

[Anonymous No.10058359]

>>10057767
>>Any questioning of status quo is treated in this board, by media and most politicians and laypeople as ridiculous and stupid.
no, only the stupid questions without proof are.

[Anonymous No.10058392]

>>10057767
Sciboys. It's easier to stick to status quo.

[Anonymous No.10058396]

>>10058315
>einstein was a maoist
>just look at his shirt

[Anonymous No.10058416]

>>10057914

If someone in this board created a thread on Modified Newtonian Dynamics you'd laugh at them.