Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Dr. Asimov is wrong. A theory is a guess, and should always be treated as such: A testable alternative that provides a better answer than a prevailing theory at any level of detail should be explored.
|
You don't seem to have much familiarity with scientific theories or with scientific research.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Even more important, if there are facts in evidence that cannot be justified within the prevailing theory, it should be censored.
|
Wrong.
If it accounts for experimental results, it should be used as long as there is nothing better.
And even in that case it still can be used (engineers still use classical mechanics).
|
So...when Pasteur offered fairly substantial proof that flies do not originate in rotting bio-organics, we should have kept using this established theory until the discovery the role of DNA? Or should we keep believing in spontaneous generation until the creation of life from amino acids has been demonstrated? |
He had evidence, didn't he?
Do you think you can use historical examples without providing the context?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Evoking unsubstantiated Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill evidentiary gaps in the Einstein-deSitter universe has zero scientific merit.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
The model might incomplete: do you have actual evidence that disproves it?
|
Absolutely. Using correct scientific principles, it is possible demonstrate supernovae Ia expansion produces a null result of the Wilson hypothesis. But since there are no known celestial mechanics that can replace the Einstein deSitter model, supernova researchers are granted the liberty of tweaking parameters until they can come very close to matching the Einstein deSitter model.
Is is a poor precedent, very bad astronomy. |
That only shows that the theory is incomplete, or incorrectly applied, or works in a narrower range of situations than expected.
Unless you provide some better theory, you have no reason to throw it away.
We have good reasons to keep using classical mechanics, for example.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Dr. Asimov’s definition discourages the challenge of existing theories, creates an unlevel playing field, and perpetuates the status quo. Bad astronomy.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
You are not familiar with scientific research.
|
Wrong again.
Researchers, who are trying to help me get published, have encouraged me to reduce the size of my papers and add as many papered and well- known names to the author list as possible. They have also urged me to use outlier tests to trim up plots and reduce the scatter in data. Reviewers have cited Carl Sagen ("Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). All good advice for getting published. Bad advice for challenging and advancing basic scientific theory. This is retarded. |
Is it retarded for researchers to ask you to provide evidence and back up your claims?
If you don't show that you have done your homework, why should they take you seriously?
Do I need to point out that if this what you think, you
really don't understand what research is?
EDIT to fix.