December 20, 2010
What’s the role of skeptics in a scientific world?
I met a funny guy recently, I narrated in a story, in a friends marriage party. He was drunk to the throat.
I would know, he offered me whiskey and asked how I would like it, I said give me without any ice or soda.
They were like a 5 or 6 all of them drinking and thought I am some kind of kid or a young hook. So I smiled and consumed it like that, as they say, R A W. They were all amazed, no one they knew of had ever done that, they said in inspiration.
(Then) The most drunk guy told me how he observed me as a pretty weird looking guy at first and so on and so forth, see the other article. (Then) He came up with pretty many character and inspirations of the scientists. I was struck by his sense when he didn’t have any and his ideas, wherever he gathered them.
India is much more hilarious than any one knows, including me, I don’t know much more than a few. No body would ever do. That is why I do not believe Nehru as a great scholar on India. He spoke about his time and what he saw, how could he ever have come up with something more hilarious that he has never seen.
He never even talked any hilarious aspect of India. I am not talking either. I am one hilarious person, but what you know I am not going to tell you all stories over night. I cant. But that is not why I made the point, of course political manipulations and false brand creations is not what I intended to write in this article but rather skeptics and their role in Science.
So Nehru comes up like a India visionary by talking about what he saw in a very customized way, but I wish there are plenty like Mr. Chetan Bhagat and many, many more chaps may come up with the real cross section of India and enlighten the world and through that India as well.
Let the falsities of our past take their rightful seat, either trash basket or the psyche of people. It is, to some extent has already taken, the free spirit of people has come up and they ask the right questions except they have to continue to share what they have learned through their pain staking experience everywhere in the world, and set the country (and the nation) rolling.
OK now lets get back to what a skeptic is supposed to do in our scientific world setting.
1. A skeptic’s role is as responsible as that of a scientist himself.
2. He has to earn respect by seeing exactly where truth belongs.
3. If he fails that criterion he has a few shots till he can set his clock on time
4. He has to work on finding a perspective of where his sceptism really belongs.
In fact ((most of the)) scientists express their sceptism in some form or other, this is a very basic part in our making. So it’s not like we just want to outsource the skeptics to make science look like a more acceptable community of intellectuals.
If a skeptic earns a good deal of respect and honor as a valid scientist he has a very good prospect of being counted as a scientist himself. SO the point I am making here is scientists are always looking for ways to include into the community of science more and more skeptics in the hope of finding yet another miracle of science, a scientist, an independent abrasive crazy thinker, one who makes holes in our knowledge because he has these holes in his own making rather than the same in what valid scientific works has produced.
Lets debunk a little bullish here, that Einstein is proved wrong, Relativity is over thrown, and Maxwell’s equation has a silly bug, which looks like a deAlembertian.
Invent it; don’t say that scientists have overlooked it as a matter of personal prejudice or even as a matter of communal harmony or disharmony. If you do, you must substantiate it better and better and better every other day.
The point in making is if I turn a skeptic of skeptic what will be your consistency checks and credit lines. Fortunately or unfortunately or as a random, arbitrary act of fortune, science has never been personal.
What’s personal is what we know in terms of history, Maxwell committed suicide, in terms of anthropic tendencies; people of Kenya like to talk about sex only when they are drunk and only that particular beer,,
Hawking talked about it in one of his lecture I read one year ago.
(Am I factually right about the nationality?)
You should be capable of holding your arguments, if you make them, or be prepared to take the burning sensation of a charlatan. Eg lately I came across couple of articles about standard model which were utter bullish if you pardon my hints and suggestions. There is no better honor that I could have given these. Why
You can not call standard model a lie or a falsity machine, unrelated to that assertion, I have even started to vision these as the ultimate theory of everything. It will explain everything and we still need to work on certain aspects. But the idea is not to counter criticize what we haven’t achieved yet, the idea is to formulate with the latest perspectives, of what fits where, reasonable explanations to reasoned skeptism and (ambitiously) put everything together.
The vision of George smoot into cosmology, Hawking into the fate of human being and why that also comes into a standard model, lets call it standard understanding of our Universe (SUU) or something like that, not theory of everything, ask Hawking to write an essay regarding the anthropic misunderstanding of a nomenclature.
(I and you understand it’s just a name and Feynman explained so brilliantly what’s in a name with that bird example, name of the bird in all the languages including my native speak Hodiya)
So one of the skepticism angle I tried to reason with was in my last article about Standard Model, which led me to find another rash allegation made about it by some Dr Myrone who mentions in his word press site he is some kind of Physicist. Now I did a little bit of research into it and found that he has developed some alternate theory to Standard model, that’s certainly a hilarious thing for me to hear since that derives from work of Einstein himself, as he proclaims.
(Please read the other article about standard model if you were to make sense of why you cant base Einstein’s speculation about something against Einstein’s own hard earned credit in Relativity and Standard Model Relativity, a basis of Standard model among other things such as quantum mechanics, QED, QCD, particle data, astronomical observations, computer simulations, etc)
In any case Gerhard Tooft seems to have shed some credible vision into it and make it clear that such bullish does not have any validity since they themselves do not provide verifiable effects, that is they are self inconsistent. That’s exactly why I necessitated myself to write my ideas about what role skepticism must play in order for it to be called or honored as science.
(((I will add, ,,, So here is what Dr Myrone writes and upon my remarks about such responds privately through an AOL email that fails to deliver my answer to him. To keep the discussion in perspective)))