The main benefit of the methodology of science is that science is progressive -- it gets better over time as more things are added. It's the part of the human civilization that is learning.
No matter who you are, no matter how smart you are, no matter how brilliantly you've drawn the conclusions you've drawn from the evidence you've gathered, there will come an instance where the evidence you encounter will be irreconcilable
with the picture of reality you presently hold. And when that moment happens, your response will mean absolutely everything.
Because there is the possibility that your view of reality -- the way you make sense of things -- is flawed in some way. You have to open your self up to at least the possibility that you are wrong.
It is a humbling admission, that you may be wrong, but it's also the most freeing thing in the world. Because if you can be wrong about something, then you can learn.
The discovery that planets move about the Sun in ellipses required exactly that; were it not for Kepler and his ability to accept that his earlier models were flawed
, and then abandon them and create new and improved ones, physics and astronomy would likely have been set back an entire generation. And if you, yourself, can do this in your own life, you can find a better explanation for the phenomena you encounter in this world. You can bring your understanding of the world more closely in line with what reality actually is. In other words, you can do what all good scientists do
, and in the end, learn something amazing.
But if you can't admit that you might be wrong, if your picture of reality is unchangeable
despite any evidence to the contrary, if you refuse to assimilate new information and new knowledge and re-evaluate your prior stance on an issue, then you will never learn.Anything.
So when I evaluate claims that "The Big Bang is Wrong" or "Global Warming is Wrong" or "Evolution is Wrong" or "Time does not Exist" or "Maxwell's Equations are Wrong" or "Special Relativity is Wrong" or "I am not a plagiarist" I want to look at some items.
- Does the person show evidence that he fully understands the topic or are they arguing against some sort of straw-man?
- Does the person show evidence that they are making a fair evidence-based argument, or are they just promoting their gut feeling over evidence provided by observation of phenomena?
- Is the viewpoint objective and communicable or does it rely on ephemeral philosophical or semantic distinctions?
- Does the viewpoint lead to a predictive understanding of phenomena or is it just some outlier data that stands outside the collection of the best and most reliable observations?
It means nothing to me that a bunch of crackpots and science outsiders are willing to stand under a common umbrella to rally against the prevailing view. Their ideas must stand or fall on their own. And when they hold contrary positions it is clear that they cannot convince their fellow outsiders of their views, let alone the science-educated mainstream.
It appears that Adrian Ferent has not met the standards for advancing human knowledge.
This post has been adapted from here
for general educational benefit.
21st April 2012 - 01:12 PM
“I define Evolution, accumulating and processing information for biological systems” Adrian Ferent
Evolution is faster for those capable to accumulate and process more information.
I calculated precisely the lower bound, the lowest number of qubits after the Big Bang:
min Iuniverse = 15.392 × 10^61 qubits.
The funny thing will be if we will find out that an advanced civilization is using and controlling the information of our planet and of course we do not know about it.
An abstract of my Life and information theory on my blog: http://adrianferent.blogspot.com/
15th May 2012 - 10:15 PM
QUOTE (alfa1+Jan 22 2012, 07:20 PM)
You wrote: "It is a long way from communism to democracy! "
Yes, indeed. But it will be longer in some communist countries than for others.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here