Attiyah's razor

[leonAzul]

So Attiyah is to Astronomy what Humber is to Physics??

Or Humbert Humbert is to developmental psychology.

 

[Steve001]

Can't the moderators stop this idiocy?

Yes, they could.
As vexing as such persons like this are they serve unintentionally on their part to put it gently show what not well thought out ideas look like.
Too banned such persons outright without engaging them to a point only serves to reinforce the perception among believers that skeptics are closed minded and rather nasty people to boot.

 

[blobru]

Attiyah's Razor: (rare footage of first experimental use of in a tightly-controlled laboratory setting)

 

[Fnord]

Yes, they could.
As vexing as such persons like this are they serve unintentionally on their part to put it gently show what not well thought out ideas look like.
Too banned such persons outright without engaging them to a point only serves to reinforce the perception among believers that skeptics are closed minded and rather nasty people to boot.

Not to mention the free education we're all receiving; most of us who've been here a while can easily and rapidly recognize the Bishadis, the Attiyahs, and the Gabhors that practice Seagull Science* on JREF.

_{(*Fly in, squawk a lot, crap all over everything, provoke anger, and then fly away.)}

 

[Dinwar]

And, to be fair, a lot of good science has been done via seagull science. Not with the guys Fnord mentioned, but asking completely bizzare questions and forcing scientists to think in new ways has a long and proud tradition in science. There's no good way to separate the guys doing it because they're trying to advance science by asking weird questions and the true crackpots, however.

 

[Perpetual Student]

These lofty sounding arguments for participating in this thread come across as quite hollow to me. More than anything else, participants appear to enjoy ridiculing the crackpot.

 

[leonAzul]

Not to mention the free education we're all receiving; most of us who've been here a while can easily and rapidly recognize the Bishadis, the Attiyahs, and the Gabhors that practice Seagull Science* on JREF.

_{(*Fly in, squawk a lot, crap all over everything, provoke anger, and then fly away.)}

Be very skeptical of the pattern of behaviour which you have described. It benefits no one when a contrarian reaction were presented as skeptical

While I appreciate the value of the neologism, "Seagull Science", as a useful description of cracked-pottery, yet there is a sense in which guano is a valuable resource.

 

[I Ratant]

Be very skeptical of the pattern of behaviour which you have described. It benefits no one when a contrarian reaction were presented as skeptical

While I appreciate the value of the neologism, "Seagull Science", as a useful description of cracked-pottery, yet there is a sense in which guano is a valuable resource.

.
But when transporting guano, be sure it's Shipped High In Transit!

 

[leonAzul]

.
But when transporting guano, be sure it's Shipped High In Transit!

 

[I Ratant]

These lofty sounding arguments for participating in this thread come across as quite hollow to me. More than anything else, participants appear to enjoy ridiculing the crackpot.

.
There is that.

 

[mike3]

You're proposing a serious revision of the scientific process, the likes of which haven't been seen since Bacon referred to a knight and not delicious dead pig parts. It's perfectly justifiable for us to ask for your credentials. I mean, without them we're left with only what you say.

So then you are forced to focus on the words and the argument, and not the man. Which is exactly how it should be. (THAT is what needs revising here -- not the scientific method itself, but what is focused on, specifically man vs. argument. I propose a "huge" revision: focus on the arguments more than the man, or best, the arguments alone. Focus on the man and utterly ignoring the arguments, though perhaps in this SPECIFIC case not harmful, is in general not so good and starts to go toward dogmatism which could be harmful when dealing with OTHER proposed arguments than this. Dogma has no place in science. This is not an apology for Attiyah's claim, rather, it is a slam at a certain attitude.)

 

[mike3]

Attiyah’s razor​

On finding an anomaly or abnormality in any natural phenomenon, scientists begin their attempts to account for it so as to give what might seem as an acceptable explanation. In such cases, however, I suggest that scientists must begin their attempts by finding or proposing another suitable anomaly in order to solve the abnormality confronting them. Accordingly, I suggest a scientific basis saying: “Anomalies solve each other” or : “abnormal solves abnormal”.
In other words, the priority in the field of explaining any anomaly must be for another anomaly. I see to call this basis as “Attiyah’s razor”.

That would not yield and new knowledge. Because to me, it looks like nothing other than just substituting unknowns with more unknowns, not trying to find ways to discover new "knowns". Inserting another unknown to "explain" an unknown... where does this unknown come from? Why can't we just replace that with ANOTHER unknown? And besides, how do you know the 2nd unknown explains the 1st? Isn't it an UNknown, so how can you possibly deduce anything from it?! And so on... Replacing voids of knowledge with more voids of knowledge does not generate more knowledge. The rebuttal of this is so trivial... Is this a joke?

 

[mike3]

Attiyah-formulated scientific statements are not claims. At least, they are self-proven theories. But you used to say: "no". So, your coming reply will be another big "NO". Therefore, my relevant reply will be "yes".

What is a "self-proven theory"? What is it about your theories that makes them "prove" themselves? How is such a thing even possible?

 

[dafydd]

These lofty sounding arguments for participating in this thread come across as quite hollow to me. More than anything else, participants appear to enjoy ridiculing the crackpot.

Yes it's fun,better than television.

 

[mike3]

These lofty sounding arguments for participating in this thread come across as quite hollow to me. More than anything else, participants appear to enjoy ridiculing the crackpot.

Agreed. "Laughing" at the "crackpot" does not help anyone learn anything. But anyway, I just gave a rebuttal based on logic. It was easy as pie to refute the claim...

 

[Steve001]

Not to mention the free education we're all receiving; most of us who've been here a while can easily and rapidly recognize the Bishadis, the Attiyahs, and the Gabhors that practice Seagull Science* on JREF.

_{(*Fly in, squawk a lot, crap all over everything, provoke anger, and then fly away.)}

Seagull Science, I like it