Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Well, this is an astronomy and science BB.
|
Which is kinda the point I'm making. The ATM ideas are neither of those.
Quote:
|
A key component of science is to entertain all speculations, consider hypotheses that have supporting evidence, and then analyze these propositions in order to determine which are predictive enough to qualify as theories.
|
Right, but hardly any (if any at all) of the ATM ideas have any supporting evidence, and most seem to be touted by people who don't even understand the science involved in the first place (and usually don't want to). Have any in the history of this board been validated by observational data?
And it's one thing to entertain honest speculation (the genuine speculation and curiosity seems to occur on the Q&A board more than anywhere else, IMO), but most of the time it seems people come onto ATM with entrenched ideas that they already believe are right, and ignore all the science that's thrown at them showing them that they're plainly wrong. It just gives them a soapbox to preach from, and perversely only seems to strengthen their beliefs. It amazes me that those who choose to be the "scientific jury" there can put up with it, they must have the patience of saints.
Quote:
|
Of course almost all ATM material gets bogged down in the hypothesis stage, but not all. That 1/1000 of one percent (or so) that makes it through that part of process is so valuable that it more than compensates for the balance which is correctly discarded.
|
Is it? I can't really see how it's worthwhile to put up with so much noise to get a fragment of possible signal that would probably collapse under closer investigation anyway.
I'll admit that I'm not particularly charitable toward ATM ideas. I've never seen one that stands up to scrutiny, and most of the time they only last any length of time because they're given attention in places like this. We're really not going to see another Einstein or Hawkings here.