Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

[Cuddles]

A number of posts have been removed to AAH for being variously off-topic, personal attacks and/or bickering. Stay on topic and remain civil.

Michael Mozina - do not continue derail threads with plasma cosmology. There are already plenty of threads on the subject and you know where to find them.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Zeuzzz]

Over a half a decade of preaching a crackpot conjecture, literally millions of words in tens of thousands of posts on dozens of forums touting a crazy fantasy based on gross errors in understanding, abject arrogance, pure religious-like faith, and an outright disdain for math and science, all resulting in a complete failure to convince a single professional scientist that the crank "theory" is remotely compelling or worthy of legitimate consideration. None but the most fervently religious would flee from math, reject real science so wholly, fail time after time while dishonestly claiming success, and still cling so tightly to a delusion which has no bearing whatsoever on the way the Universe actually works. His accomplishment has been, in fact, to provide the quintessential example of a pretend scientist who is religious about his pretend science.

I hate to bump this thread as I was drinking when I wrote this and the OP is awfully written to convey my message.

Bolded statement is patently false. Michael by no means is orthodox in his theories or views, but hes certainly not delusional. And I've seen plenty of professional scientists study his hard work, some of which seemed to be more than intrigued. Me included. All gems are small and well disguised.

I find your confrontational Ad Hominem nature on this forum absolutely abhorrent Geemack, someone who takes such apparent pleasure in desperately attempting to destroy the dreams, beliefs and work of someone to such an extent as you do reveals your true self. The picture I get is not as someone who has conviction in his own beliefs and reasoning, but someone who deep down fears his adversary may have valid points to make, thus is forced to resort to pejorative 'crackpot' attacks to induce emotive responses. You just come across to me as bitter, twisted and insecure.

Can this thread be closed. Its just brought out the worst in everyone.

... hmm now I wonder why that could be ...

 

[Reality Check]

I hate to bump this thread as I was drinking when I wrote this and the OP is awfully written to convey my message.

Bolded statement is patently false. Michael by no means is orthodox in his theories or views, but hes certainly not delusional. And I've seen plenty of professional scientists study his hard work, some of which seemed to be more than intrigued. Me included. All gems are small and well disguised.

I find your confrontational Ad Hominem nature on this forum absolutely abhorrent Geemack, someone who takes such apparent pleasure in desperately attempting to destroy the dreams, beliefs and work of someone to such an extent as you do reveals your true self. The picture I get is not as someone who has conviction in his own beliefs and reasoning, but someone who deep down fears his adversary may have valid points to make, thus is forced to resort to pejorative 'crackpot' attacks to induce emotive responses. You just come across to me as bitter, twisted and insecure.

Can this thread be closed. Its just brought out the worst in everyone.

... hmm now I wonder why that could be ...

Originally Posted by GeeMack
Over a half a decade of preaching a crackpot conjecture, literally millions of words in tens of thousands of posts on dozens of forums touting a crazy fantasy based on gross errors in understanding, abject arrogance, pure religious-like faith, and an outright disdain for math and science, all resulting in a complete failure to convince a single professional scientist that the crank "theory" is remotely compelling or worthy of legitimate consideration. None but the most fervently religious would flee from math, reject real science so wholly, fail time after time while dishonestly claiming success, and still cling so tightly to a delusion which has no bearing whatsoever on the way the Universe actually works. His accomplishment has been, in fact, to provide the quintessential example of a pretend scientist who is religious about his pretend science.

In actual fact, you are wrong

• Bolded statement is patently true except for Oliver K. Manuel who picked up on Michael Mozina's fantasy about running difference images of the corona showing solid structures on the surface of the sun. This was to support his own Iron Sun idea.
• Michael by no means is orthodox in his theories or views, but he is certainly not knowledgable about science.
• Michael is delusional about the correctness of his ideas, e.g.
  • He is deluded in thnking that there can be a solid surface at the temperature of greater than ~5700K within the Sun.
  • He is deluded in thinking that a running difference movie shows solid structures on the surface of the Sun..
• No professional scientist that has ever studied his hard work has been intrigued since it is obvious that it is wrong.

However it is you that is calling him delusional not GeeMack (though I suspect that GeeMack would agree ) since there is no comment about delusion in that post, especially the part that you bolded, Zeuzzz.

GeeMack is confontational but that is understandable because he has been involved with Michael Mozina and his fantasies for many years. He has made a few Ad Hominem comments about MM but most of his comments have been pointing out that MM is acting like a typical crackpot

• MM has been touting an obviously invalid ("crazy") idea for years on internet forum over 1000's of posts.
• This idea does show gross errors in understanding on MM's part.
• MM has continued to ignore the actual science that has been pointed out to him 100's of times. This is "abject arrogance".
• MM does have a "pure religious-like faith" in his idea becuae he has no evidence except his fantasies of what he only sees in solar images.
• MM does have a "an outright disdain for math and science", e.g. his continued insistence that the Casimir effect is not negative pressure despite the facts that the theory states that the pressure is negative and the experiments measure a negative pressure!

I could add my own list of the ways the MM acts like a crackpot but this is getting away from the topic of this thread since while MM is "religious about his science", he is not a scientist.

 

[GeeMack]

In actual fact, you are wrong

• Bolded statement is patently true except for Oliver K. Manuel who picked up on Michael Mozina's fantasy about running difference images of the corona showing solid structures on the surface of the sun. This was to support his own Iron Sun idea.

Actually Oliver Manuel's own whacked out notion about the construction of the Sun puts the iron in the middle, at the core, in direct opposition to the crackpot conjecture which is the subject of Michael Mozina's evangelizing. Also, Manuel has stated in discussions on the BAUT forum that he does not accept that the Sun has an iron surface, solid or otherwise. He seems to be embarrassed about putting Michael's name on some papers he wrote, or at least he's reticent to acknowledge it.

Nobody who knows a bit of math has found Michael's incessant sermons compelling enough to jump in and help him in that area where he possesses no skill whatsoever. Nobody who actually understands physics has been swayed to help Michael flesh out his nutty conjecture. Nobody involved in any area of science that relies on satellite imagery, or imaging or photography of any sort, has suggested that there may be something valid in Michael's radical misinterpretation of what he sees in the pictures. Nobody who works with helioseismology has agreed that Michael's conjecture is worthy of any legitimate consideration. Despite his missionary approach, Michael hasn't persuaded anyone other than a couple of kids from some junior science clubs and maybe a few other crackpots from the EU/PC sect. And even those people generally avoid getting involved in Michael's discussions, I suspect out of concern for the embarrassment they might suffer for allying with a guy who is so wholly and totally wrong about virtually every scientific thing he talks about.

So it still holds true that in over five years of preaching his purely faith based, unscientific fantasy, Michael has not convinced a single professional scientist that it has any merit. Michael is indeed religious about his convoluted notion of science, but he is by no means a scientist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I hate to bump this thread as I was drinking when I wrote this and the OP is awfully written to convey my message.

Bolded statement is patently false. Michael by no means is orthodox in his theories or views, but hes certainly not delusional. And I've seen plenty of professional scientists study his hard work, some of which seemed to be more than intrigued. Me included. All gems are small and well disguised.

I find your confrontational Ad Hominem nature on this forum absolutely abhorrent Geemack, someone who takes such apparent pleasure in desperately attempting to destroy the dreams, beliefs and work of someone to such an extent as you do reveals your true self. The picture I get is not as someone who has conviction in his own beliefs and reasoning, but someone who deep down fears his adversary may have valid points to make, thus is forced to resort to pejorative 'crackpot' attacks to induce emotive responses. You just come across to me as bitter, twisted and insecure.

Can this thread be closed. Its just brought out the worst in everyone.

... hmm now I wonder why that could be ...

Ya, I wonder.....

The basic problem is that some folks treat science like religion. They are intent on publicly and personally crucifying all the witches and heretics they can find. If they can't attack the idea itself they crucify the messenger.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael is indeed religious about his convoluted notion of science, but he is by no means a scientist.

If you're an stellar example of what you think a "scientist" is supposed to be, I don't want any part of it.

 

[Mongrel]

If you're an stellar example of what you think a "scientist" is supposed to be, I don't want any part of it.

Well, scientists are generally prepared to look at the opposing evidence and consider they may be wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, scientists are generally prepared to look at the opposing evidence and consider they may be wrong.

In my experience some are, some are not. Some leave *NO* room for alternative ideas or beliefs and go on crusade against alternative ideas. It all depends on how one practices their science/religion. Some do it with an open mind. Some do it with a vengeance!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Religious Scientists II

Except in this case the mainstreams ideas don't actually work (in the lab) at all.

Actually, where relevant, they work in the lab just fine.

They only "work" when you folks handwave at the sky and claim you invisible friends did it.

And this is where you implicitly deny the validity of science, as it is practiced by scientists world wide, and substitute something else in its place. This is a fact recognized by the real scientists with whom you argue, whether or not you are willing to accept it as such. I have discussed this in detail elsewhere, e.g., Dark Matter and Science II (with correction Dark Matter and Science II.5), What is "Empirical Science"? V, What is "Empirical Science"? IV and the various references & links therein. Your reliance on laboratory experiments where such experiments are obviously and well known to be irrelevant is the point where real science & Mozina science part ways.

If they can't attack the idea itself they crucify the messenger.

It is certainly true that the vigorous debate typical of internet discussion boards often descends into vitriol. That I think is because these discussion boards are primarily frequented by amateurs, rather than professionals, so knowledge is usually lacking when compared to rhetorical skill. However, the ideal notion that one should at all times attack the message, rather then the messenger, must be rejected. After all, the topic of this thread is scientists who are "religious" about their science. This thread is really supposed to be about the messenger, rather than the message.

The overly religious approach to science is where ambition & emotion & blind faith overwhelm reason and prevent the logical development of an idea into a real scientific hypothesis or theory. This makes the messenger a key element of the discussion. In your case, it is very easy not to trust anything you say. After all, you have the bad habit of ignoring criticism as if it never existed. See, for instance, Dark Matter and Ultra Faint Dwarf Galaxies II, wherein you claim that "not a single person" has even acknowledged your point, when in fact several people had done just that. Why would or should anybody trust any messenger who behaves like that? Whether it is deliberate dishonesty or gross carelessness is beside the point. Whatever the cause, it is an obvious indication that the messenger is untrustworthy, and therefore the message must be approached with doubt & skepticism.

There is another aspect of the messenger that matters here. Most of the people watching discussions like this (we call them lurkers) do not take part, choosing to watch from the sidelines. Most of them do not really even count as "amateurs". They know little or nothing about science and are in no position to exercise any store of personal knowledge to assess the likely validity of any scientific argument. They have no choice but to rely on the credentials or background of the individuals, the messengers. So how is anyone lurking around likely to choose between an amateur, such as yourself, and a professional, such as myself or tusenfem or a few others? Is it any wonder that your arguments never manage to catch on in any venue?

Why do I need a PhD again?

A perfect case in point. Arrogant dismissal of education & knowledge, as if they are impediments rather than accomplishments.

You are yourself one of those people who's blind religious faith has overwhelmed reason, destroying any sense of logical development of your ideas. Everybody but you (or perhaps nearly everybody) can see it. Lurkers can assess the difference between your arrogant excitement and the more measured response of several critics, along with your evident lack of trustworthiness, and come to their own conclusions. And so far at least, the number of new posters who chime in on the electric universe or plasma cosmology side of things seems significantly outnumbered by their opposites.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, where relevant, they work in the lab just fine.

And this is where you implicitly deny the validity of science, as it is practiced by scientists world wide, and substitute something else in its place.

Empirical physics never goes out of style Tim, and scientists worldwide practice it. That fact that modern cosmologist don't like it's constraints is not really my personal fault.

My last response got the axe so rather than do this line by line, let me tone it down a bit and point out the errors in your logic.

It's psychologically fascinating to me that you've created a three tier hierarchical structure, what you call "professionals", "amateurs" and "lurkers". In your way of looking at things the lurkers are evidently incapable of discerning a good scientific argument from a bad one, and must somehow rely strictly on personal credentials. The mere questioning of why someone needs to have a Phd to debate a scientific topic results in accusations of arrogance on my part.

From my way of looking at things it is the height of arrogance to A) presume lurkers must necessarily rely on credentials to determine the scientific validity of any given argument, or that B) amateurs are by definition "less trustworthy" than you simply by virtue of that title that you bestow upon yourself, evidently defined by the PhD you seem to believe is necessary to even discuss science.

What you've done here is created a fallacy called an appeal to authority fallacy. The flaw in your logic is obvious. Hannes Alfven won a Nobel prize in MHD theory, he was the first individual to apply that theory to space, and he believed in an "electric sun". Do you have Nobel Prize Tim? If not, what is an amateur like myself supposed to think when you still believe in something Alfven blew off as "pseudoscience'? Shall I believe the scientist with the Nobel prize or the mere "professional" with only a Phd?

The other flaw in your logic Tim is that you have been actively bashing "electric sun" theories before I even got involved in EU/PC theory. Whatever animosities you ultimately directed my way, they certainly weren't "personal" to start with. You and Dr. Scott were going at it on the internet long before I even got involved in electric sun theories. IMO you are simply looking for reasons to villianize the individual when in fact it's whole topic (electric sun/electric universe) that you have a problem with, not really me personally. You've just got your whole public persona wrapped up in the electric universe/sun debate and I just happened to walk into the middle of it. It's not just my ideas that you seem to dislike, or just Dr. Scott's ideas that you disagree with. You don't seem to have any respect for Birkeland's cathode solar theories either, not to mention the solar concepts written by Bruce and Alfven, etc. The way I see it Tim, it wouldn't matter what my name was, what I do for a living or how many PhD's I have hanging on my wall. You would have gone after me anyway simply due to the topic, not necessarily due to anything personal to start with. You would have eventually found something personal to focus on, because you don't really know if the sun has an electrical aspect to it or not. You're just emotionally wrapped up in the debate as I see it. You can personalize it if that floats your boat, but you were publicly wailing away at electric sun theories before I had even read a single one.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Empirical physics never goes out of style Tim, and scientists worldwide practice it. That fact that modern cosmologist don't like it's constraints is not really my personal fault.

That's a misrepresentation. Modern cosmologists do indeed practice empirical physics. Contrary to your repeated assertions, I haven't seen any evidence that cosmologists dislike its constraints. To take just one example, a growing body of empirical evidence has delivered quite a blow to the old consensus that cosmological mass/energy lies well below the critical value, raising that question anew. Are cosmologists rejecting that empirical evidence, or shirking their obligation to develop new hypotheses consistent with that evidence? Far from it.

It's psychologically fascinating to me that you've created a three tier hierarchical structure, what you call "professionals", "amateurs" and "lurkers". In your way of looking at things the lurkers are evidently incapable of discerning a good scientific argument from a bad one, and must somehow rely strictly on personal credentials.

I think you're misinterpreting Tim Thompson's views. When I read his brief essay, I understood full well that I'm mostly a lurker, an amateur with respect to physics and cosmology, and professional only in certain narrow areas that seldom arise in this forum.

That doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between a good scientific argument and a poor or nonexistent argument.

From my way of looking at things it is the height of arrogance to A) presume lurkers must necessarily rely on credentials to determine the scientific validity of any given argument, or that B) amateurs are by definition "less trustworthy" than you simply by virtue of that title that you bestow upon yourself, evidently defined by the PhD you seem to believe is necessary to even discuss science.

Tim Thompson did not presume (A). He qualified his statements about lurkers with the word "most", used twice. Your "necessarily" is a misrepresentation of his position. As for (B), you put "less trustworthy" in quotes as though you were quoting Tim Thompson, but he did not write that phrase.

Although I am mostly a lurker, I did not read Tim Thompson's post as an attack on my ability "to determine the scientific validity of" an argument. I don't believe he was saying that amateurs are less trustworthy by definition; I believe he was simply stating the empirical (!) fact that amateurs such as myself tend to be less trustworthy than professionals.

He certainly did not claim that only PhDs can discuss science. He didn't even mention the PhD degree, aside from his quotation of your previous post. He did assume your mention of PhD degrees was a "dismissal of education & knowledge, as if they are impediments rather than accomplishments," but I think that's a fair summary of your attitude.

What you've done here is created a fallacy called an appeal to authority fallacy. The flaw in your logic is obvious. Hannes Alfven won a Nobel prize in MHD theory, he was the first individual to apply that theory to space, and he believed in an "electric sun". Do you have Nobel Prize Tim? If not, what is an amateur like myself supposed to think when you still believe in something Alfven blew off as "pseudoscience'? Shall I believe the scientist with the Nobel prize or the mere "professional" with only a Phd?

To exemplify fallacious appeal to authority, you cited the very same appeal to authority that you've been using for years. Well done.

Alfvén won his Nobel prize for MHD. In my amateur opinion, he made significant contributions to solar, interplanetary, and galactic physics.

Having read his diatribe on "Cosmology: Myth or Science", however, my amateur opinion is that his opinions on the distinction between myth and science are both amateurish and (explicitly!) religious, e.g.

A very important conclusion from the Big Bang cosmology, which is seldom drawn explicitly, is that the state at the singular point necessarily presupposes a divine creation.

That's nonsense, but it's all too typical of Alfvén's arguments.

You're just emotionally wrapped up in the debate as I see it.

That's not how I see it. Although both you and I are amateurs with respect to this debate, you've done a lot to convince me that I'm in a better position to judge it---partly because I have a stronger background in mathematics and physics, but mainly because my emotions are less wrapped.

 

[Jono]

Einstein really did introduce time as a fourth dimension

Wasn't that Minkowski's notable addition to SR?.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Einstein really did introduce time as a fourth dimension, of a manifold that's pseudo-Riemannian^WP rather than Riemannian.

Wasn't that Minkowski's notable addition to SR?.

I included more of the quote than you did since I think the complete sentence is relevant. Minkowski was indeed the one who introduced the concept of space-time to special relativity, but it can be reasonably argued that the geometric viewpoint is just a mathematical trick in the theory. (As far as I can infer---from a cursory reading of this thread---that was Alfven's argument.) General relativity, though, seems to require the geometrical viewpoint more strongly: in it, space-time really is a manifold, and so time really is the fourth dimension. I suppose this is what W.D.Clinger meant.

 

[quarky]

I'll go out on a short limb:

Religion was the precursor to science; a means to comprehend the universe we perceived, however wrong it was...but more than that, a means to unify the basic mindset of our groups and tribes.

Natural selection rewarded the tribes with the more functional approaches. Relating dark clouds with lightning, for example, was a good idea. It didn't matter so much at the time, that said lightning was also considered to be an expression of an angry god.

The first few 'primitives' that figured out how to make a superior stone spear point were onto the real stuff of science, though their survival advantage would have been quite useless without their unity of belief in more abstract, religious thinking.

The analogy I see today is that science tends to be quazi-religious in the choice of what it is that is worthy of scientific investigation.There is a plethora of investigation towards 'sexy' areas of inquiry, such as astro-physics and quantum mechanics, which is fine. However, there is a paucity of inquiry into the relationships between trees and fungi; how certain beetles reproduce; subtle ecological connections, and other 'down-home' science.

While we study the cosmos, the ants are taking away our foundations.

(Quarky braces himself for the assault.)

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'll go out on a short limb:

k. And to lighten up this thread a bit I'll reply completely unreasonably using the "cut peoples quotes way too short to get their right meaning" method that I often see many people on this forum use to make it look like they've won an argument. (yes, i am boooooooooooored)

Religion was

Correct.

the precursor to science;

A really bad one, but correct.

a means to comprehend

Comprehension is subjective.

the universe

Exists? And? tell us something we dont know.

we perceived, however wrong it was...but more than that, a means to unify the basic mindset of our groups

Yeah pretty much. Tribes too though dont forget.

and tribes.

Yes.

Natural selection rewarded the tribes with the more functional approaches. Relating dark clouds with lightning, for example, was a good idea. It didn't matter so much at the time, that said lightning

"said lighning"? Lightning cant speak

was also considered to be an expression of an angry god.

What?

The first few 'primitives' that figured out how to make a superior stone spear point were onto the real stuff

Define: Stuff.
Then define: Real stuff.
I doubt you will be able to.

The analogy I see today is that science tends to be quazi-religious

Wrong.

in the choice of what it

Nonsense. Not even a full sentence.

is that is worthy of scientific investigation.There is a plethora of investigation towards 'sexy' areas of inquiry, such as astro-physics and quantum mechanics, which is fine. However, there is a paucity of inquiry into the relationships between trees and fungi; how certain beetles reproduce; subtle ecological connections, and other 'down-home' science.

LIES LIES LIES!

While we study the cosmos, the ants are taking away our foundations.

Ants cannot "take" themselves or be aware of what they are really doing, they can only respond to certain stimuli.

(Quarky braces himself for the assault.)

Bend over chap (Thickest muslces there)

 

[Dancing David]

So the evidence that there are scientists who are dogmatic to the detriment of science is?

You know the original OP?

 

[paximperium]

So the evidence that there are scientists who are dogmatic to the detriment of science is?

You know the original OP?

Because people who have accomplished nothing said so.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The analogy I see today is that science tends to be quazi-religious in the choice of what it is that is worthy of scientific investigation.

Ok serious now, thats a very very good point. A lot of the science of consciousness/dreaming/altereted states right now would be totally ridiculed about 30 years ago as just not a reliable subject or a pseudoscience. Now we have many respected fields like epigenetics and psychopharmacology that would (likely) have been not considered worthy of investigation 20-30 years back when the materialist blueprint view of genes was so prominent.

And quite a profound thought. I could think of a good few areas that were dismissed as not worth scientific attention only later to become scientific frontiers in their own right.

At the end of the day science needs new fresh innovative ideas to persist.

"science *knows* it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop. Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you." Dara O

And old theories need to fall or be tweaked. Nothing is infallible. If, say, we finally balanced all our equations, found all our missing particles one day, Mr Higg Boson popped up, and all data was collected in the next three years, so all finished and done, there would be hell of a party. Then a hell of a depressing few years as we realise its all wrong and based on incorrect assumptions, the history of science has shown us time and time again.

While we study the cosmos, the ants are taking away our foundations.

k er um

this

a) A Joke
b) A deep reference to the nature of conscious entities on earth creating the universe, as no matter what we see consciousness HAS to be involved in everything in some way or another (whether reading graphs or experiments)
c) You are genuinely concerned with the decision of NASA to build most new building on dead ant nests?

 

[Zeuzzz]

So the evidence that there are scientists who are dogmatic to the detriment of science is?

Evidence aside for a minute, are you saying that science is void of dogma?

Nonsense.

Theres certainly a hundredth of a fraction the amount of dogma in science as there is religion. But it does certainly exist. People become attatched to theories, people dont want to give up on falsified experiments, so will continue peddling them or creating even more extravagant explanations to explain the shortcoming. Probably a superstring quantum gravitational loopy seed dynamic thing, ya know, created usually due to problems with existing theories to tie up loose ends. Always completely mathematical and internally provable and unfalsifiable, but fails to tie in with any sort of reality in the slightest; as it is experimentally unprovable and can not be tested. If an exotic mathematical theory that ties up many loose ends can not be experimentally verified, or no-one knows how go about it for a theory, its certainly not science.

 

[paximperium]

So there is no evidence of any detriment?