Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In need of an overhaul for almost 50 years.

Here's what I think the problem is:

Fallacies

A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. The alphabetical list below contains 204 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides brief explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are.

To make progress, I think the successful scientist will become an expert in recognizing and combating the fallacies rather than coming up with new experiments with laboratory equipment or inventing new equipment.

The problem is people and the way they think and react.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

It is no secret that a large and growing number of physicists, as well as scientists in allied fields, are profoundly dissatisfied with the general state of physical theory as it now stands, and are convinced that some drastic overhauling will be necessary.

This book was published in 1963.

Indeed there were a large number of physicists calling for an overhaul in 1963. And there was a revolutionary overhaul in the 1970s, which brought us the Standard Model.

It is no secret that among a large and growing number of physicists, the main source of dissatisfaction with the Standard Model is its stubborn refusal to get anything wrong. Despite throwing at it the most creative and sophisticated experimental challenges in history. The thing just works.

It's a bit annoying, because we desperately need to see clear evidence of something beyond it so we can answer some deeper questions. There's no shortage of clever ideas for what lies beyond, but no definitive observational basis for any of them.

One thing for sure, making the case against the nuclear atom after the 1970s would be like making the case for the earth being flat after having been into space and looked back and seen a globe. It ain't going to happen.

(Except by people like Beebs who'll make a case against the nose on your face by refusing to look at it.)

Originally posted by Bobathon
(Except by people like Beebs who'll make a case against the nose on your face by refusing to look at it.)

A case in point in the use of fallacy of argumentation.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

To make progress, I think the successful scientist will become an expert in recognizing and combating the fallacies rather than coming up with new experiments with laboratory equipment or inventing new equipment.

But that is exactly what any decent experiment is for.

A case in point in the use of fallacy of argumentation.

The what?

Originally posted by Bobathon

That's the problem.

You think it's funny.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

That's the problem.

You think it's funny.

I think I may have misread your previous comment, Mary - I apologise.

You're right - making a case against something that is in plain view by refusing to look at it is a good example of a fallacy: it's an argument from ignorance.

Good list, by the way.

Originally posted by Bobathon
But that is exactly what any decent experiment is for.

No, experiments are for observation.

Combating fallacies is necessary for the valid interpretation and following up on what is observed.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
But that is exactly what any decent experiment is for.

No, experiments are for observation.

Combating fallacies is necessary for the valid interpretation and following up on what is observed.

Which is exactly what any decent experiment is for.

I see what you're saying - you're referring to the physical act of doing the experiment. But nobody performs experiments just to observe, without coming to any conclusions. They are always intimately connected.

And as you say, a thorough understanding of fallacies is essential for arriving at valid conclusions.

Originally posted by Bobathon
I see what you're saying - you're referring to the physical act of doing the experiment. But nobody performs experiments just to observe, without coming to any conclusions. They are always intimately connected.

DB Larson's work is focused on the problems we have in physics because of the conclusions drawn, relied upon, and built upon.

Honest scientists need to get to work on these problems.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
I see what you're saying - you're referring to the physical act of doing the experiment. But nobody performs experiments just to observe, without coming to any conclusions. They are always intimately connected.

DB Larson's work is focused on the problems we have in physics because of the conclusions drawn, relied upon, and built upon.

Honest scientists need to get to work on these problems.

Logical fallacy, Mary. Or are you saying scientists who discover things that verify the standard model are dishonest scientists?

Originally posted by 547000
Are you saying scientists who discover things that verify the standard model are dishonest scientists?

Discover things would be experimentation?

I'm not talking about experimentation. I'm talking about interpretation.

With 204 different varieties of fallacies, all honest scientists and the general public, who benefit from the technology that science provides for us, have their work cut out for them.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

DB Larson's work is focused on the problems we have in physics because of the conclusions drawn, relied upon, and built upon.

Honest scientists need to get to work on these problems.

For someone interested in fallacies, these are rather silly things to say.

Larson's work is focused on his own personal quest against parts of mainstream science, it's full of inconsistencies and errors, and it's all entirely out of date. Why would honest scientists be interested in that?

reply to post by Mary Rose
As I said, ALL experiments involve coming to conclusions about what the observations mean, and avoiding fallacies.

If you know of experiments which have been interpreted fallaciously, surely the thing to do is point them out and reveal the fallacy, not make sweeping generalised implications.

It's a good list. But it's hardly as if you've stumbled upon something that science is unaware of, really.

reply to post by Bobathon


If you've read DB Larson, you know what I'm talking about.

He writes about history.

Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . it's full of inconsistencies and errors

Name them.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

If you've read DB Larson, you know what I'm talking about.

He writes about history.

Are you serious? Did you read the "case against the nuclear atom"? It does have a modicum of science history, but also contains a large amount of silly theorising. Like "volume of an atom should be roughly proportional to atomic weight". Why? Because Larson said so. His comments on cristalline lattice are equally laughable. And oh yeah, his hovercraft is full of eels.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And oh yeah, his hovercraft is full of eels.

Another case in point.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And oh yeah, his hovercraft is full of eels.

Another case in point.

Exactly! After a few pages of gratuitous nonsense from DB Larson, this phrase somehow fits in just fine.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

If you've read DB Larson, you know what I'm talking about.

He writes about history.

I have. I do. He does. And he gets a great deal of it wrong. The case against the nuclear atom chapter that we were discussing goes entirely off the rails as soon as he starts making claims regarding observational data at the start of the third paragraph. It's a blatant testament to his ignorance of what has been observed. It's an awful start, and it doesn't get any better.

Mary, if you want to discuss any fallacies of experimental physics that require addressing, don't just make vague generalised implications with no content. Say what they are and let's discuss them.

If you believe that any of Larson's claims are true and are significant, don't just make vague generalisations, say specifically which ones and let's examine them.

(somehow, judging from past experience, I don't think this will work, but one has to try)

Here is an excerpt from DB Larson:

155. Extremely high temperatures are reached only in very large aggregates of matter. If the aggregate is large enough to reach the destructive temperature limit of the heaviest element present, this activates the process of conversion of mass to thermal energy described in (147). We identify such an aggregate as a star.

Mary, what do you think of that? What evidence points towards conversion of mass to thermal energy, and do you think it's true that high temperatures are only reached in larger aggregates of matter? Also Mary, how large does such aggregate need to be?

157. The principle that small numbers are more probable than larger numbers applies to the formation of the elements (with some modifications due to other factors). The heaviest elements are therefore present in the stars only in relatively small concentrations, and the energy released in their destruction is dissipated by radiation from the stellar surfaces. As successively lighter elements reach their destructive limits, the concentration of the individual element arriving at the limit increases, and eventually this process reaches an element that is present in quantities that produce more energy than the radiation mechanism can handle. The excess energy then blows the star apart in a gigantic explosion. We identify the overabundant element as iron, and the explosion as a Type I supernova.

Well in this particular piece of nonsense DB Larson demonstrates his wholesale ignorance of the nuclear binding energy. Small numbers are more probable than larger numbers? This is just mind-numbing stupidity.

Why iron? How does iron produce energy? Well because DB Larson said so.

In reality, of course, iron does not produce energy in stars. Iron is the heaviest element present in stars prior to a possible supernova event due to reasons like explained here. And when a star blows up, heavier elements can be formed.