swansont

So, you've got a new theory...

Recommended Posts

This is vastly different from pondering and/or exploring the boundaries of existing knowledge in an intellectual discourse.

 

Although I agree that research should be performed and any results presented' date=' there are times when the pure thought should excite some interest in pursuing the subject further.

 

Every single scientific discovery came from someone looking at a thing from a different perspective, and most were laughed at initially. That is what a theory is, a thought process taken to a logical conclusion and then proven repeatedly. A theory is not a fact.

 

I see no problem with someone throwing out a theory for others to disprove or refute; it is how we all learn. Morphology is a great example. When Sheldrake proposed the morphic field in the 70s, he offered a prize for its refutation in the classical manner.[/quote']

 

1. I agree that speculation is a valuable and fun pasttime. However, the key for a fun and valuable discusions is the "for others to disprove or refute". First, the person making the speculation should have tried to refute it. Second, the person making the speculation must be willing to accept refutation. If either condition is not met, then it ceases to be fun and valuable. If (1) is not met, then we are simply rectifying a deficiency in the speculator's knowledge base -- a glaring deficiency. If (2) is not met, then we are in a discussion that has no end and no value.

 

2. A theory is NOT "a thought process taken to a logical conclusion and then proven repeatedly". A hypothesis/theory is a statement or set of statements about some part of the physical universe. Those statements are then tested by deductive logic. If the testing supports the theory, then it is a currently valid theory. If the testing refutes the theory, then it is a falsified theory. So, a theory that has not been "proven repeatedly" -- such as geocentrism -- is still a theory. It doesn't stop being a theory when disproved.

 

3. Yes, a theory is not, technically, a fact. However, we regard many theories as factual. For instance, "the earth is round" is a theory. It has been repeatedly tested and never falsified. So today we regard that theory as "fact". Atomic theory of gasses is another theory that is regarded as factual. So is cell theory.

 

Niles Eldredge in The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism makes a very convincing argument that there is no hard and fast demarcation between hypothesis, theory, and fact. He uses the example of round earth to show how a statement can be regarded as a hypothesis, a theory, and a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a new topic could be introduced. It could be called Ponderables' date=' for those of us who like to nibble at the edges of the unknown and share those thoughts with others.

 

Then the discipline-bound scientists would not be offended and would not even have to open the threads; and the rest of us could exchange wild ideas, new theories, estoteric propositions and questions regarding the boundary fields of known science without being labeled as lesser beings.[/quote']

 

I would suggest naming the Topic "Speculations". But I would still insist that, on a science forum, that the people making the speculations 1) test their speculations first to try to show them wrong and 2) accept falsification when someone else refutes the speculation with existing data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we do weigh more at the poles. this also causes a bulge in the earth at the equator.

 

PS. there is no centrifugal force. it is an effect caused by a centripetal force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I C. I think you could make a good argument that you would weigh more at the poles for exactly that reason. The reason is that at the pole our tangental velocity is equal to 0. The sum of the Forces has to still be equal to zero so since there is no tangental velocity and no centrifugal force component. It has to be true and here is why. Why do objects orbit the earth? It is because they are moving at such tangental velocity that the centrifugal force is sufficient to overcome gravity just enough that the object misses the earth on its re-entry trajectory. I would imagine that if you were going fast enough (and omitted things like friction from air and such as they would make you incinerate) you could accelerate yourself fast enough so that you could orbit the planet only inches above the earth's surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how fast do I haft to go to get lift from a sphere?

 

Depends on the mass of the sphere. There are equations to calculate that.

I'm sure a google search would find them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 pages of arguing over the rules and nobody has even posted a theory yet lol.

 

This thread isn't the place to do that. It's meant to be a list of things to consider when creating a new topic, and a discussion of those items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pseudo-science means not science or science that is beneath the dignity of consensus science. Ponderable means thinking about something new, at the grass roots, where all science begins. Science does not begin all nipped and tucked, but begins with new questions and new ways of seeing things. Sometimes from this beginning new science grows.

 

For example, here is a ponderable, probability and statistics as we know it, is only a good first approximation, since probability has a connection to entropy, which is a function of energy. The first approximation assumes full energy. A more complete theory should consider partial energy probability, which could impact many theories.

 

Let me give an example, if we throw a six sided dice, there are odds that allows us to predict the outcome. But this example assumes we have added enough energy for complete randomization. Say I weakly threw the dice so it can only flip 90 degrees and not complete a full roll. At this lower energy, instead of 6 sides only 4 are possible plus one impossible side. Someone playing cards would not all me to just cut the deck as a shuffle. They want me to use enough energy for full randomization. If I used less energy, I can change the odds.

 

This effect occurs in the DNA. For example, some parts of the DNA mutate faster than others. There is a not a full energy randomization of the DNA or the dice would not favor some of the sides much more.

Edited by pioneer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a new theory on psychology...but it's proven evasive to prove....i mean, who would want to allow me to know every thought, every move, every word, and almost everything the 'someone' has gone through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i play poker, and its boring, thinking about taking cuttings off a plant next year is interesting to me, i win poker, i think there should be a game thats active, guess the colour, rubixs cube tried but it has to be a money game, stakes, come on it cant be hard, i know chess was the last one, but we need a new one------ do it

 

 

 

 

 

 

is saffron and lead the making of gold, be romantic people, dont let science halt science

 

i play poker, and its boring, thinking about taking cuttings off a plant next year is interesting to me, i win poker, i think there should be a game thats active, guess the colour, rubixs cube tried but it has to be a money game, stakes, come on it cant be hard, i know chess was the last one, but we need a new one------ do it

 

 

 

 

 

 

is saffron and lead the making of gold, be romantic people, dont let science halt science

 

but pioneer randomisation is the problem and since when is entrophy connected to energy

 

ok lol sorry

ill reply with what i mean

 

the iris govt should have realesed a ran sum, so should have the world raised the russian sub,

 

alvin is our starship

 

dont forget the mid atlantic convayor belt people, salt and water are worth money, but atlanta is life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a different opinion does not constitute a personal attack, whether you are on the side of the mainstream or the fringe. It is true that so-called mainstream scientists will use personal attacks under the guise of having an honest difference of opinion. An old Martin Gardner article was stunningly bad that way, and he was the math guru of the 1950s. And no, "being wrong" does not justify personal attacks.

 

I haven't seen any of that going on here, but I want moderators to be aware that some people do it, and watch out for it. It's not the subject matter. It's not the side you are on. It is the way you present your opinions.

 

Yes, I agree. My experience in posting in other forums is that someone will respond by taking every one of my paragraps in order and insert nit-picking comments between each one. At or near the end, they then make over-all condesending comments about my post and my "intellectual undercapacity." My take on this is that these posters are semi-retired professors who are used to showing off their "amazing genius" to their "lowly students." The practice is expecially bad in the social sciences. Perhaps that is because social theory consists of enough rationalizing that they are sensitive about it enough to deveop this defensive mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a new topic could be introduced. It could be called Ponderables, for those of us who like to nibble at the edges of the unknown and share those thoughts with others.

 

If you and the others really want to consider a new theory, I'll do my best because I have worked on one for decades. It involved amassing an understanding of the data of some 24 social and natural sciences.

 

It involves social evolution. As of now, the social theory consensus, such as it is, has no viable explanation of what civilizations and societies are and both how and why they rise and fall, no theory other than a really hopeless one dealing with "memes."

 

What I theorize, in a nutshell, is that "societies" and their civilizations are a type of organism in that they have a life cycle and a non-genetic way of evolving through natural selection. They compete with each other and ultimately the older (weaker) is natural-selected out. A new one develops based upon a new and advanced (for the times) ideology ("religion").

 

I can support this vital role of ideology by reminding everyone that we evolved through millions of years of evolution as small-group primates (hunter/gatherers). We are still small group primates and unable to funtion successfully without the use of language and religion (the newer the better) to bind us into larger groups (nations and their "societies").

 

Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you and the others really want to consider a new theory, I'll do my best because I have worked on one for decades. It involved amassing an understanding of the data of some 24 social and natural sciences.

 

It involves social evolution. As of now, the social theory consensus, such as it is, has no viable explanation of what civilizations and societies are and both how and why they rise and fall, no theory other than a really hopeless one dealing with "memes."

 

What I theorize, in a nutshell, is that "societies" and their civilizations are a type of organism in that they have a life cycle and a non-genetic way of evolving through natural selection. They compete with each other and ultimately the older (weaker) is natural-selected out. A new one develops based upon a new and advanced (for the times) ideology ("religion").

 

I can support this vital role of ideology by reminding everyone that we evolved through millions of years of evolution as small-group primates (hunter/gatherers). We are still small group primates and unable to funtion successfully without the use of language and religion (the newer the better) to bind us into larger groups (nations and their "societies").

 

Any questions?

 

If you want to discuss it, it belongs in its own thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love "Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USE OUR SEARCH ENGINE FIRST!!! before posting.

 

you`de be surprised what might have been thought of before you :)

 

Not being argumentative, YT, but I have to ask: What if people just want to come here and chat while tossing around ideas? Do we really need to do our homework (use the search engine) in order to post anything? I guess what I'm asking is, is this a chat forum first, or a science forum first? There is a section on religion, so it can't be all about big brains hammering out complex equations to one another. I enjoy the chats here, but I'm no big brain. <-- Does that disqualify me from posting anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am somewhat in agreement that anecdotes are not evidence, I am also aware that the term "anecdotal evidence" first came into wide spread useage after the citizens in Calif were able to get Proposition 65 on the ballot and then made law. This proposition's requirements so terrified the pesticide manufacturers that they needed to make sure that it didn't get passed in other states. (After all it was bad enough for industry that the then 25 million folks in Calif would have some protection against the over rampant use of toxins.)

Foremost among those who were alarmed was Monsanto. After all, back in the late 60's early 70's,  Monsanto's  execs  had actually lied to the EPA in order to get their product RoundUp, currently the best selling herbicide in the word, licensed for over the counter sales. The lie was regarding the type of aldehyde utilized in the product's formulation. At that point in time the aldehyde was formaldehyde, which by the 1980's had become one of Prop 65's no-no's. (RoundUp consists of 41% glyphosate, 15% polyoxyethalenamine, or POEA, which bio degrades into dioxane, and then an aldehyde, no longer formaldehyde, and then the rest is water.)

It was this knee jerk reaction against Prop 65  that then brought forth the notion that  all observations were silly and useless and only the confirmation of the totally rushed-through, short time lapse "studies" were relevant. So we end up in an era wherein after the BP oil spill, the execs at BP want to use one of their own products, Corexit, to assist in "cleansing the Gulf" of the oil. EPA scientists were directed to study fish put into tanks with Corexit for a number of weeks.

Then the researchers  were to determine if the fish were still healthy. Apparently they were, and the fish were released. However one scientist knew that was too short a time period and he kept his research subjects in their tanks for a month or six weeks longer. Those fish all died prematurely in relationship to their species normal age ranges. But did BP care? No, of course not. Now they could sell the various government agencies their Corexit, make a huge profit, have a nice PR pitch to the citizens who lived near the Gulf. As after all,  who cares if they were  further hurting  the marine life of the Gulf! (As long as the EPA approved study showed otherwise.)

Observation was always Step One in deciding on formulating a hypothesis and then working out a study. Back in the 1700's, Ed Jenner observed fewer than fifty cow maids becoming infected with cow pox, but then all going on to live through small pox epidemics. This was due to the hypothesis Jenner promoted, which in our day and age would be considered based on  mere anecdotal evidence, that the cowpox had provided these ladies immunity. There were no world class labs where he could validate his theory.

Today there are plenty of world class laboratories. Unfortunately, many if not all of them inside the USA are under the control of Corporate-controlled scientists. Does anyone here think that after UC Berkeley received a 50 million dollar grant that any students or researchers there would be able to propose a look at Novartis' products to see if they were a source for the burgeoning breast cancer rates among San Francisco women? So many times, we activists see decent studies done at great expense to the independent scientists whoa re hell bent on The Truth. If someone here can show me one time wherein one of these decent but small-ish studies is  taken seriously by Big Corporate-America and then Industry expands upon the study after small time researchers bring forth disturbing results, I would be greatly relieved. (Usually there is instead an immediate press release that So and So's recent study regarding Product X is totally worthless as the number of test subjects was too small, and that fact alone means So and So should be made into a pariah and black listed from serious consideration forever more!)

So if some researcher puts together a study showing that disturbing the gut flora and embedding the stomach and/or intestinal lining of young children with measles virus can trigger a massive and complex  neurological series that causes the children so studied to then regress from talking and  speaking, socially communicating children into autistic patients, there is little likelihood of this study being done on a large scale basis. Rather than industry being intrigued and also concerned that their practice of insisting children receive multi-injections of vaccines at one time, they made a pariah out of the man whose peer-reviewed study showed a serious concern for alarm at the idea of continuing multi vaccinations in one day for children under three years of age. Again if someone here can show me ONE SINGLE INSTANCE wherein a scientist who has a small study that needs to be expanded on can then watch as concerned industry executives guarantee the study is undertaken with a larger number of test subjects, I would be quite grateful. Until that instance is demonstrated to me, I will be suspicious of the Industry Giants telling us activists that our concerns are based on mere "anecdotal evidence."

Edited by Carol Joy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Carol Joy said:

Although I am somewhat in agreement that anecdotes are not evidence, I am also aware that the term "anecdotal evidence" first came into wide spread useage after the citizens in Calif were able to get Proposition 65 on the ballot and then made law.

Not really. Was already in use at that time (1986)

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content="anecdotal+evidence"&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C" anecdotal evidence "%3B%2Cc0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Pretty comprehensive list, Swanny.

I especially am digging #14.

Edited by Velocity_Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now