The New Science 4

Mainstream Science Failings

You’d never know it from what you’re told, but good science often involves simplifications, not obfuscations, or complications.

A useful rule of thumb is, complexity isn’t necessarily truth.

You’ll often hear praise for the “elegance” of a particular solution to a problem. They’re usually describing a simplification, an inspiration that “gets to the heart of the matter.”

We as people have an egregious zone that plagues us, believing that, if arcane science pronouncements are incomprehensible, they are the scientific truth.

A magician pointed out, that people think magicians somehow really do have magical powers, which is why they can’t see through their “tricks.”

Meaning that if they truly believed that magic was “tricks,” and understood the definition of “tricks,” they would look for possible ways magicians’ tricks could be performed without benefit of paranormal abilities.

It’s the same with our magical “scientists,” and the terrible glorification of that cohort of society.

Yes, science is, often, simplification. None of these scientists are as smart as we’ve been led to believe. So when people start throwing around stuff like, “Riemannian spaces of constant curvature in which the Lobachevskii geometry holds,” and “the Helmholtz Tensor,” and other BS, remember, math is just a tool among other tools, and science itself has to be explainable and make sense, not be just a bunch of fancy talk.

There is another principle to be gleaned from all this: If some revolutionary theory or solution does not involve simplification, we’re justified to be suspicious and wary of it.

Dweebs Dweebing

Look at the rantings of this dweeb, Brian Koberlein:

For example, in the late 1700s there was a theory of heat known as caloric. The basic idea of caloric was that it was a fluid that existed within materials. This fluid was self-repellant, meaning it would try to spread out as evenly as possible. We couldn’t observe this fluid directly, but the more caloric a material has the greater its temperature.

We now know there is no “heat fluid” known as caloric. Heat is a property of the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms or molecules in a material. So in physics we’ve dropped the caloric model in terms of kinetic theory. You could say we now know that the caloric model is completely wrong.

Except it isn’t. At least no more wrong than it ever was.

The basic assumption of a “heat fluid” doesn’t match reality, but the model makes predictions that are correct. In fact the caloric model works as well today as it did in the late 1700s. We don’t use it anymore because we have newer models that work better. Kinetic theory makes all the predictions caloric does and more. Kinetic theory even explains how the thermal energy of a material can be approximated as a fluid.

This is a key aspect of scientific theories. If you want to replace a robust scientific theory with a new one, the new theory must be able to do more than the old one. When you replace the old theory you now understand the limits of that theory and how to move beyond it.

It’s tempting to say the dweeb is just misinformed and spewing his vomitous nonsense because he can get away with it, but, unfortunately, it is an accurate reflection of what asshat scientists really believe.

Of course the caloric theory was dead wrong, the dweeb admitted it, then discounted that very admission. We know now, of course, with our insights into scientific theories, that “caloric theory” was never a theory in the first place, just a shot in the dark. There can be any number of wrong models that make (some) correct predictions, due to tailoring the theory to fit the data (some call it the “epicycle argument,” where to explain astronomical observations, old-time astronomers merely introduced spurious “epicycles” into their explanation for planetary orbits, regardless of the facts).

Now, how about tackling the statement that caloric theory made predictions that are correct? It in no way did so, but it did allow people to derive predictions that were wrong, but where the numbers sometimes worked out right! The why you are correct is as important as to be correct. In fact, the caloric theory is merely an indictment of the incompetence of the scientists of that era. It claimed a mythical “caloric” existed as a substance, that “becomes hidden” during phase changes, with no explanation how a substance could magically hide! We’re back in that old, tiresome category of “ghost theories,” where your speculation morphs into whatever form is necessary.

A clear signal with these epicycle “predictions,” is that they are simply restatements of empirical observations. When you try to extend and make real, novel predictions, you experience failure. Imagine if your bad model is used to make flawed predictions where lives are at stake. That Bozo thinks that’s just dandy. The medical profession’s old theory stated the appendix was just a vestigial, useless, artifact (to try to prop up the Evolution scam), not an organ. With a little more research, it was found to contain a repository of gut bacteria to replenish the intestine if need be. Not “vestigial” at all. Imagine all the needless suffering and operations done on the basis of their idiotic, reckless hubris, showing the danger of a pompous and cavalier attitude and of the belief in bad theories.

AI Overview

The Phlogiston theory of Harmonics

The phlogiston theory was a superseded scientific theory from the 18th century that explained combustion as the release of a fire-like element called “phlogiston” from combustible materials. It proposed that when something burned, it released phlogiston into the air, leaving behind a residue like ash. The theory was eventually disproven by Antoine Lavoisier through careful mass experiments that demonstrated that combustion involves the combination of a substance with oxygen, a gas first isolated by Joseph Priestley.

Oh. So theories can be “disproven” then.

What is being played here by that shilling dweeb, and many others, is the game of saying that scientists can’t be wrong. That they’re infallible! You can imagine how preposterous that idea is, and dangerous, what with their already over-inflated egos.

“A theory is only a good approximation until a better approximation comes along,” to paraphrase. But theories can indeed be wrong. It may turn out that many current theories, even very important ones, are wrong. In fact, Newton’s law of gravitation is already wrong since it does not work at large distances, very small distances, and so on. And it may turn out to be an embarrassment, a straight up fallacy, if it turns out that matter doesn’t actually attract other matter, as Larson suggests. Instead of “law” and “theory,” they should be using the correct term, “approximations” then, in their tainted work.

Nice to never be wrong, and be recipient of endless grant monies from a complacent and gullible public. What’s next, some other freak wanting free bux to gather up all the “caloric” to stop global warming?

Yes, we’re asking for more rigor in science.

This ruse of “correct predictions” as the gold standard seems to be a common one with the asshat pseudoscience racket we have to tolerate. To “prove” something, they simply make up some “theory,” so that its “predictions” exactly match the result they want. General Relativity (G.R.) was said to be a great triumph for “predicting” the deviation in Mercury’s orbit (precession of the perihelion). Yet another fallacy they sow, because it predicted nothing, since the deviation rate was already known and measured before G.R. ever came along.

G.R. makes a claim that the body of the heavy Sun “warps and drags space around it” to explain the deviation. Which is where we have to stop and take a breath. That is an arbitrary claim that can be tailored to match observations. Fortunately, some scientists are beginning to question Einstein now, because space was supposed to have no properties except as a container, and because the theory doesn’t hold up.

It is quite true that the general theory of relativity is not consistent with the special theory any more than the special theory is with Newton’s mechanics—each of these theories discards, in a sense, the conceptual framework of its predecessor.

- Peter Bergmann

Tesla pointed out that General Relativity can’t be true, for it violates the law of action and reaction. And there are other issues.

Where General Relativity Is Known to Be Incomplete

Conflict with quantum mechanics: GR is a classical theory and is not compatible with quantum mechanics, which describes physics at a microscopic level. A major goal of modern physics is to develop a theory of "quantum gravity" that unites the two. Where a theory of quantum gravity makes different predictions than GR, we would expect to see GR fail.

Infinities and singularities: GR predicts singularities, such as at the center of a black hole, where spacetime curvature and gravity become infinite. Since infinity cannot be observed in reality, this indicates that GR is an incomplete theory that breaks down under these extreme conditions.

Cosmological problems: GR alone, without additions like "dark matter" and "dark energy," cannot explain several large-scale cosmological observations, including the rotation curves of galaxies and the accelerating expansion of the universe. A more complete theory might explain these phenomena without needing to invoke hypothetical forms of matter and energy.

We should note here the injection of the weasel word, “incomplete,” to describe G.R. It’s not incomplete, it’s just plain wrong with all these problems.

The Importance of Sigma

Sigma doesn’t just tell when your experiment may be bad, but often exposes when your theory is wrong.

Here’s hoping people paid attention for the last article. Let’s not gloss over the 5 𝛔 (5 sigma), and 60 sigma errors we talked about when they measure the gravitational constant, “G.” (A sigma represents one standard deviation of error.) You’ll remember, 60 𝛔 represents the rather dismal odds of 1 in 6.83x10⁷⁸⁹. One experimenter found that “G” was different for different materials! (It’s supposed to be independent, unchanging for any substance.) But instead of earnest investigation, they discredited the experiment. The dopes of science often spin “issues” that go against their pre-established and laboriously constructed artifice, searching desperately for some way to blame the researcher.

With big sigma deviations, they say, “It must be experimental error,” without pinpointing exactly what error that was. Worse, they say, “It was in error because it didn’t measure to the accepted value.” They’re supposedly trying to find the proper value, but in their non-science, they assume the answer, then discard results they don’t like. (Keep in mind, the people doing the experiments aren’t, as a rule, bunglers at setting up experiments, and others come in to assess their configurations, so it is outlandish for the scientific community to selectively pick and choose the results they like.) Whatever the study or research done, it’s all valid in some sense, not just those experiments that give the desired results, since the bad experiments show places where others can also go wrong (and there may still be some good data within the bad). Consequently, all the data and findings must be reported. It’s a sort of principle then, that we can use bad science to help make good science.

This is all to point up the fact that experimentation works both ways. The experiment may be wrong, or the theory the experiment is based on may be wrong. If no experimental error can be found, it’s time to examine your initial premises. (Which is another reliable principle we can list.)

Scientists particularly are susceptible to a characteristic we noted back in Thoughtcrime. If something like Newton’s gravity model were challenged, the impact on science would be huge and, they fear, devastating. They can sense this and are reluctant to question any so-called “fundamentals.”

We have examined one way they lowered science into superstitious voodoo with “Evolution.” We showed how, even if Evolution were true, there would be no science to be extracted from it, because there’s nothing scientific about “random changes.” Consider the blatant stupidity of trying to explain something like an arm developing, with all its necessary connections and links to the brain and other organs, as just some fluke of happenstance! Or that random change led to consciousness. In the first place, you’d have to know what consciousness is, before making any claims as to its origin.

Another Flaw of Science: The Money Motive

They pull the trick of hiding data in a more obvious way, with drug trials. There they absolutely want to publish only favorable results.

If you visit ClinicalTrials.gov, you can research trials for all kinds of medications. What you will find interesting is the percentage of times no results are shared. We can assume that means they weren’t favorable.

There’s no need to “assume” anything, we already have enough background information to know they hide negative studies.

They really come down hard on any so-called “alternative” treatments and remedies that might cut into their profits.

It’s not just medicine, and it beggars belief how much they waste on the worse than useless nonsense we’ve discussed before, because science is co-opted by the profit motive. Not just profit of monopolizing certain science, but by suppressing other science, so as to avoid any new developments that free us up or reduce our expenses.

←Prev Article Navigation