Science is like a game, except much more complicated.
What’s happening here is there are thousands that are playing this game. This is an international game.
Its like, this is what we intend to do. And you are from a different culture and you have different constraints but you definitely understand what we are talking about so you come up with your own team and crack some of the problems.
Then it just becomes an industry. But the real point I want to make is what we are trying to work at is Nature or in any case Universe. What’s the difference anyway? Universe is Nature. But at a large large scale as well as at any scale. Nature is what we often refer at a scale, which is directly perceivable, or in case of the small-scale matter and interaction, the ones whose effects are still observable by us.
How these are studied in all its details, anyway, means we are studying even the ones that are not observable.
The problems with the mathematician and the linguist are the same; they will take apart words rather than the total implication, at least that is how they understand, its enlightening to know how different category of people understand differently, therefore they pose questions in a way it does not make much sense, most of the resources of the scientist therefore goes into understanding different scenarios and different category of people, so a satisfying answer could be provided and it’s a bizarre behavior of the so called clients of scientists to expect customized answer because it suits their understanding.
The whole idea is to give those answers that do not completely interfere with your own setting, so even when there are answers to all sorts of notions and perceptions; the scientists are not prepared to answer them all.
Eg some one does not have a correct notion about the standard model of particle physics or even cosmology but he goes about writing one long article based on his own notions about it, such as one that I came across and in this case the author of that article is confidently striking his points that standard model is some kind of collection of particles much in the sense of a collection of elements is called a periodic table.
I see why this is actually misunderstood, if you send a student or even a professor to a poster conference who is concerned about explaining the audience what a standard model is he will come up with a reasonable answer but if he comes across many of the valid quest from an audience he will definitely bunk and give an answer like that, then it will do its round and ultimately form a myth that that’s what standard model is.
Then that will go into forming another and so on till the time Dash or Hawking meet such in their respective bed rooms, in a bizarre one night stand with the mosquitoes and take some pain to shed some of their thoughts about it.
(It is a fun intended to bring the fact that I was reading Hawking and Dirac in a dusty mosquito laden night)
Note that a strain against science or scientist does not go off that easily but this is one of the brilliantly dark aspects of science. Nobody cares till there is a striking misunderstanding. If you ask me, my answer is, its not my responsibility to see to it that we don’t have a right or clear answer, but let me take some effort at the cost of some thing or other and put some light on it.
So it’s our intention as scientists to study nature and we know so many aspects of our Universe that they all fit completely into each other. Except to preserve the bizarre nature of Nature itself there are close and open-ended questions. The triumph of science, one of it, is that we have remarkably brilliant scientists that (including the famed and clarity expositor Stephen Hawking) can put all the puzzles together.
It takes time and perseverance and good will, from every one of us.
I am just doing the advocacy because it sucks how completely uninformed junkies are making nonviable claims on the purview and on the basis that they could ask anything and it’s the responsibility of science to come up with quite sensible answers. Lets test science. You said science is amenable to examination, well it is and I said because it is, I also said go take a dip in Arabian Ocean, did you.
Manmohan you cant say it like that; I can and I have a purpose in saying that. If you are not quite happy with the way science goes then go and write it out, your articles and come up with all the skepticism in the world. Stop calling all science and scientist liars or even warts. They may be. Keep to yourself; it’s not a fun game.
(But) I said science is a fun game, that, only if you know what it is. You don’t play it from where you are at. You can’t. You missed all the skills, education and more than that the perspective. You may be a Law Professor or an Attorney you may have a lot of lateral thinking to your credit and it’s a good thing, I am not cutting out its significance, what I am saying is you don’t know how to formulate a good science question. I will give you an example how a law guy is formulating a science question.
“This is where me and science start to diverge. I think that our understanding of time is fundamentally flawed. We know with light, sound, radiation, matter, energy etc that there is something physical – a wave, a beam, particles etc. But there is no correlating physical aspect of time. Time therefore is a concept that has developed to order society and is not necessarily a scientific construct as much as it is a tool to civilization. Yes, there is a rotation of a star and a planet, but because we are trapped in time of our own making, we try to see the universe through the eyes of this time.
If we ignore time, I think that what we are left with is a series of events, counter-events, cycles, maturities, evolution and other movements which when considered in the context of the big bang and what happened before it, give us more open minded ideas to consider. ”
This was the remark of a law guy as he posted it in the comments to a science article in nature. There were other silly remarks he made, all of it I am not going to reproduce. Internet is filled with baloney about science, big claims, anti claims, this that. If there is one guy I am going to believe about the creation of Universe it’s Hawking, all others fit somewhere.
Penrose is a great Mathematician, but some of his Physical claims are bloated. The news that he based his remarks on, is described in the later paragraph and my answer is also there.
If he (Law Guy above) had a training in science, he was possibly going to come up with some such answer trying to see reason with why such an effect is showing up rather than why our fundamental constructs of time as measured physically are flawed and suits us apropos a link bearing to civilization.
This is not what they teach you in law school. Two things I propose they should have, basic and advance Physics courses in law school and second; (how to) formulate a scientific question to a scientific problem. I am not stopping you from asking it. I am just saying any meaningful question is bound to have an implication for the real problem and one that is enthusiastic like yours will be taken with enthusiasm, but its too bold and unscientific to say our understanding of time and Universe are false or fake.
What are its implication for a law professional, if the claims are false and fake, a crime. Don’t commit a crime against science or scientist.
One of the other bizarre aspect is how the so-called tax payer money angle is drummed up and down, left and right to silence valid arguments that have no supporters to begin with or supporters that do not quite right away see the validity or invalidity.
The general understanding is if its a strong idea it will support itself. Yeah, but who is inviting tax payer angles to it or say internet enthusiasts or more practically internet braggarts or even, Ron Krumpos, this guy writes on my blog site constantly, that he is some kind of mystique, who has written texts on the Universe, that I must right away, take, he has had interaction with the famed Physicist Chandrasekhar.
Well so am I a mystique, I met a Josh guy in Kroger one day, six years ago and got talking to him about the property of packed milk. In a country style restaurant in Virginia, all I was worried to talk to the waitress was about the science of mashed potatoes.
But the ones that really crack me up are the ones that claim you can Unify Brahman from Hindu mysticism into Grand Unified Theory or say Science can falsify Brahman.
(some mystics say Brahman means consciousness, because thats what we use in a rush of adrenaline)
What a favor to science, pardon me, we haven’t even had a success at unifying quantum mechanics with Gravity. Why would we try Brahman?
Well its mysticism.
Well, then let it be mystic forever.
The job of science is to make things clear not a thing such as an outright mystic illusion. These are created with a purpose to exploit our interest, over our interest to reason.
Then why would we reason enough to shed light on Brahman?
We better shed some tears that human beings are folly and jolly enough to even continue with philosophy of the last millennium. But no good. We are interested about the science of last two millennium but we want to put everything in prospective, that’s why. It’s still bizarre, but Philosophy as Hawking recently remarks hasn’t kept with the latest works of knowledge so it better be dead.
And we have this grand illusion about everything, Einstein espoused about religion and philosophy, none of Einstein’s fault, but now I understand why he had so many followers around the world.
Now the article on which the law guy put his perspective is the following.
Just a couple days ago there is news on some Physics journals that (Vahe Guru) Vahe Gurzadyan and Roger Penrose are disputing the so-called Big Bang model of the Universe.
Because they find some sort of concentric circles on the cosmological map from 7 years data that seems like Universe existed before Big Bang.
It’s pretty easy to see what time interval before big bang that would correspond to and if we do a little analysis and calculate the uncertainty on time in those regions, may be we end up with a conclusion that this is allowed by the laws of nature.
May be there are equal number of concentric circles that lie on the other side of Big Bang, a little experimental thought of mine to line with the conjecture that these are fluctuations in the instrument that measured, some such thing.
May be the events are just smeared because of some artificial artifact. Its also possible that since these are circles there is a patterned phenomenon here that emanates close to Big Bang. But the scientists are quite careful to find out what it is really, without that Penrose wins a simple game of science. I mean to say scientists can not just ignore it. It may be a pretty good sign that we are seeing some effect.
So if the law guy was trained in some kind of Physics Knowledge, he was definitely going to make a reasonable remark about science. Its another fact that scientists are not always concerned about satisfying every valid concern some one may have towards a Physical problem. It’s physically strenuous.
It better be both, strenuous and an attempt to bring clarity when there are concerns.
But there are critics that have already come up with remarks that goes like there are usually many triangles and circles of patterns that are there but they do not replace the Big Bang theory or model or understanding, as you put it.
I don’t want to be a critic of the critic here which I may be at times, but I will definitely keep my cool and call a little name to those that are calling scientists liars. If the scientists do not give you a satisfactory answer its possible because they haven’t have been making much effort in finding some rest. If you are asking them something completely out of place have some prospect, it does not hurt if the scientists keep quiet at your inflated claims about the prospects of science or even the validity of science.
There once upon a time was a guy named Paul Feyerabend, a little inflated philosopher, he wrote a little philosophy calling scientific methods and science a lie, later he retracted saying he was in depression and he wished he did not write that whole book at all.
If you think scientist guys are in some kind of turmoil or depression, its because how the world succumbs to madness, not the same kind that the scientists are famous for.
If you think scientists must retract or claim falsity at a valid scientific argument or even one in which they come out looking the moral kings, because they showed their personal character, its possible, let it be natural.
Stop playing God and stop playing a scientist. Be your self, that will help more.