Dictatorship in science

[jpittelo]

Do you consider that relativity can be considered as a kind (of) dictatorial theory, in the sense that nothing can go above it, or it's wrong.

 

Indeed some people speak of faster than light travel, but this is included in relativity, since, subjectively, i.e. for the observer, it exists speed faster than light...let see : suppose one goes at half the speed of light and runs for a distance which is one light year :

 

D=1y*c...v=c/k...then clearly the time the observer will take is smaller, due to the length contraction :

 

T=D/gamma/v=1y*k*sqrt(1-1/k^2)=1y*sqrt(k^2-1)

 

So that if k goes downward to one, the time goes towards zero...hence suvbjectively or relatively, the speed is greater than the speed of light.

 

A famous example is given by a travel to proxima centaury, which for the terrestrial is 1 million year, whereas for the traveler, it takes 15 years...?

[Tormod]

How can any theory be dictatorial? If you find a solution that does not match with the theory, and your solution is correct, how would relativity strike back?

[hallenrm]

How can any theory be dictatorial? If you find a solution that does not match with the theory, and your solution is correct, how would relativity strike back?

 

Well said Tormod, a theory cannot be dictatorial, but the scientific establishment of a particular time can be!!! History of science is replete with examples, where scientists who matter refused to accept any contradictions in the established paradigm!!

 

What do you say to that:) :cup: :)

[jpittelo]

No..maybe you need the word immobilism...protectionnism against esotery ?

[pgrmdave]

Scientists are usually wary of any new theory that vastly changes the old, accepted theory. But that is a good thing, and necessary. In most cases, there is a lot of evidence for the old theory, years and years of experimental data backing it up, while the new theory doesn't yet have that type of evidence.

[Qfwfq]

Those who think it's worthwhile will have nothing against searching for evidence. In any case, they want to see enough evidence before considering the new idea as better.

 

What can happen is the difficulty of seeing a less obvious point of view, being stuck in a groove, basing conclusions on default assumptions that don't apply if one assumes the new idea. Often it is just the proponent that's unable to explain it well enough, sometimes the idea simply doesn't hold up but the proponent can't see why.

 

There is rarely a deliberate intent to outdo the adversary, though it can and has happened, if somebody uses annoying ways to push their idea forward.

[cwes99_03]

let see : suppose one goes at half the speed of light and runs for a distance which is one light year :

 

D=1y*c...v=c/k...then clearly the time the observer will take is smaller, due to the length contraction :

 

T=D/gamma/v=1y*k*sqrt(1-1/k^2)=1y*sqrt(k^2-1)

 

So that if k goes downward to one, the time goes towards zero...hence suvbjectively or relatively, the speed is greater than the speed of light.

 

A famous example is given by a travel to proxima centaury, which for the terrestrial is 1 million year, whereas for the traveler, it takes 15 years...?

First, let not the thought of dictators cross your mind and miss out on the actualy scientific part of this thread

Hmmmm, might I suggest checking that math to someone with better math skills than myself.

Then might I suggest a commentary on the actual GRT and how it states that one cannot travel faster than c. I know that what jpittelo is trying to show is that we on earth would view them as having traveled faster than c but that the actual pilot (due to time dilation) would measure his speed as v<c. (I was actually amused when jpitt started out by saying the pilot traveled at 1/2c and yet his final conclusion was that the pilot traveled at v>c.

[Pyrotex]

Well said Tormod, a theory cannot be dictatorial, but the scientific establishment of a particular time can be!!! History of science is replete with examples...;)

For there to be a dictatorship, there must be some means of enforcement. Political dictators have their armies, with guns and tanks. Or they have a secret police force taping conversations and taking names. Or they have ways of making the distribution of ideas "illegal". Point to anything in Science (the process itself, or the institutions) that enforce this dictatorship you claim. WHO is the dictator???

 

I have a better question.

 

Why is that some people who don't understand Science, or who have grown up with some kind of dogmatic contempt for Science, or who don't like some of the Scientific results currently espoused, insist on professing a "conspiracy theory" that has no evidence and makes no sense?

[Pyrotex]

Scientists are usually wary of any new theory that vastly changes the old, accepted theory. But that is a good thing, and necessary. In most cases, there is a lot of evidence for the old theory, years and years of experimental data backing it up, while the new theory doesn't yet have that type of evidence.

Good point. May I enlarge on this??

 

Dogmatic scientists are actually not that common, because inflexible dogmatism is a "character flaw" that shows itself rather early in anyone's career. The graduate student who prefers to rail against some scientific point "dogmatically" is likely to be branded as "unreasonable" by his/her peers.

 

I (and many of my fellow students) disagreed with or attempted to refute our textbooks. It was (and IS) common practice to do this. We were never put down or punished or belittled for this activity -- as long as we could rationally and logically (often mathematically) defend our positions. Typically, it would turn out that we (the students) had made a bad assumption or gotten a sign wrong in our math.

 

Bottom line. The way Science "changes", and the span of time it takes to change, is pretty much exactly the way it has to be. No one has every come up with a better or more optimum process for testing old theories and replacing them with better ones. The Truth is like Gold, it just happens to be where you find it (and NOT where you DON'T find it) -- and it takes a lot of sweat and thinking and testing to dig it out and prove to other folks that you actually have it.

 

I think it's funny (if a bit scary) that many people criticize Science using logic that basically says that Science is bunk because it takes too long. Think about that. ;)

[TheFaithfulStone]

Point to anything in Science (the process itself, or the institutions) that enforce this dictatorship you claim. WHO is the dictator???

 

Peer review is not ALWAYS like this, by a long shot, but it certaintly can be. I would say it's like this MORE in some sciences than in others.

 

That said, you can't very well do without it. You have to enforce the orthodoxy in order for the unorthodox ideas that DO make it through to have any value.

 

Actually, though, I understand (to a point) where jpittelo is coming from. A lot of the "research" scientists I know are "can't-do" people. That is, there is always some theoretical reason why some idea won't work. Of course, generally, they're right but this pessimism sort of extends itself to where capital S Science has a bit of Cassandra-complex.

 

There are a whole lot of things you shouldn't do because they're obviously impossible. (Cold Fusion, FTL, AI, force fields, gravity control)

 

Now of course, working on any of those things given current (well-established) theory IS a waste of time. My wife is working on her PhD and has had several people tell her research was a waste of time and that she should "work on something important." On the other hand, there are also people who tell her she's on to something really interesting.

 

I think the orthodoxy can be much more strictly enforced in Academia and the funding agencies than it is in places like NASA and the private sector.

 

I'm not sure it qualifies as a "dictatorship" but it can be pretty demoralizing to hear "That's a waste of time," from someone you respect - even if there are a bunch of other people telling you to pursue it.

 

And I don't think this attitude arises from any serious exploration of the issues so much as a desire to preserve the status quo. All "sectors" are like this of course, the arts, business, whatever. It's just that Scientists make a point how they don't have this attitude.

 

TFS

 

edit: I'm REALLY not trying to sound like a crank, going on about how peer-review is a corrupt process, it isn't. But there are plenty of Scientists that will tell a younger colleague not to work on something because it's waste or a dead end, etc.

[Pyrotex]

Peer review is not ALWAYS like this, by a long shot, but it certaintly can be....That said, you can't very well do without it. You have to enforce the orthodoxy in order for the unorthodox ideas that DO make it through to have any value...I'm REALLY not trying to sound like a crank, going on about how peer-review is a corrupt process, it isn't. But there are plenty of Scientists that will tell a younger colleague not to work on something because it's waste or a dead end, etc.

Okay. I agree with nearly all of that. It's the difference between arguing about the historic trend of climate at a certain location, and the weather that occured there yesterday. :) :) :)

 

In grad school, I got enamored of a new theory of quantized space/time and proposed to build a computer model to simulate this. My advisor talked me out of it, and rightly so. The biggest computer on campus did not have the CPU-power to perform my model in a thousand years!! I didn't think of him as dogmatic and still don't. He was right. I was naive.

 

One learns to recognize the true, blue-blooded dogmatic dictatorial pedantic *******. If you're lucky, you can get assigned to a new advisor. If not (and I wasn't), you can always change majors! (which I did).

 

But this happens in ALL fields. If we are gonna trash ALL knowledge (and ALL religion!!!) because SOME teachers (AND some preachers) are pedantic tyrants, then let's give up and go back to the Stone Age.

:doh: :cup:

[TheFaithfulStone]

The pedantic assholes aren't hard to recognize. The exude a pedantic ******* field - propagated by the newly discovered subatomic particle - the moron.

 

I'm not saying that everytime a prof puts the kabash on some "great idea" it's dogmatic oppression. Sometimes the "great idea" is just stupid. That said, it's fairly easy to distinguish between the people who just want you to work on their project instead and those who really think it's a bad idea. (Because the latter ususually explain it, rather than using the phrase "waste of time.")

 

Science has a built in device for squashing new ideas, called "peer review", most of the time it works great - sometimes not so much. Art has one too - called "Critics". Remember how much everyone hated Constantin Brancusi? Who's famous now? Huh? Huh?

 

Any field of knowledge can be a dictatorship. It's frustrating when it happens. Just like not every crank gets weeded out in peer-review, not every worthwhile unorthodox idea get's through.

 

A double-edge sword, as it were.

 

TFS

[Pyrotex]

...Science has a built in device for squashing new ideas, called "peer review", most of the time it works great...Just like not every crank gets weeded out in peer-review, not every worthwhile unorthodox idea get's through....

And this is as it should be, given the fallibility of mere mortal humans!

 

This is in fact the saving grace of Science, the very heart of its success. It is NOT easy for even a GOOD idea to make it to the top. The hurdles are great -- the resistance from orthodoxy serves to weed out the cons, the naivete, the cranks. But a GOOD idea does eventually get through.

 

What is scary is that there are critics who argue that THIS filtering process is PROOF of Science's arrogance and dogmatism -- and that therefore, Science is "just another religion". Such "bafflegab" is hard to dispute since it is in error in so many ways, with so many flawed assumptions, that it is difficult to pick a starting point from which to form a response. The fact that this finger of accusation points BOTH ways, making their viewpoint or faith "just another religion" does not bother them apparently.

 

I enjoyed this conversation, TFS. See ya tomorrow.

[hallenrm]

Scientists are usually wary of any new theory that vastly changes the old, accepted theory. But that is a good thing, and necessary. In most cases, there is a lot of evidence for the old theory, years and years of experimental data backing it up, while the new theory doesn't yet have that type of evidence.

 

It is precisely in this context that I initiated the thread Absolute truth: a neccessity or just a convenience.

 

Well I am happy that there is now some discussion on that line of thought.:xx: :doh: ;)