Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Atla »

Papus79 wrote: July 19th, 2020, 11:34 am
Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 5:38 am And how do you know that? Maybe there really are forms of 'matter' in the universe we haven't been able to find yet (I would be very surprised if there wouldn't be any). Or maybe our current models simply contain errors, or are fundamentally wrong.

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are simply short for "we don't know what is causing these measured anomalies". How is that quackery?
It's only quackery if someone wants to tell us that we're almost at the end of physics and we just need to physically get our hands on dark matter, dark energy, etc. to prove its there. The good news - I doubt that's a common belief among scientists, just that unfortunately that's how they tend to convey it to the layperson.
Weird, I can't say I have encountered this. What I see conveyed is more like the opposite, that we should build much bigger particle accelerators etc., because fundamental physics is kind of stuck since decades.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Papus79 »

Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 11:52 am Weird, I can't say I have encountered this. What I see conveyed is more like the opposite, that we should build much bigger particle accelerators etc., because fundamental physics is kind of stuck since decades.
I find that interesting because I'm somewhat wondering if there might already be some things that punch a hole in that. For example Nima Arkani Hamed's research, particularly the amplitouhedron, makes me wonder if we have objects we could be studying, from what we have now, that could give us more 'bang for the buck' if we wrap our research around mapping those and then seeing how that maps back to fundamental particles.

Also have you listened to any of Eric Weinstein's talks on physics or his Geometric Unity idea or his sense of what the state of String Theory has been since the 80's? He's had some pretty good conversations with other mathematical physicists, like having had both Sir Roger Penrose and Garrett Lisi on The Portal (largely debating with Lisi because he worries that he's wasting his time). He was on his brother Bret's Dark Horse podcast a week or two ago and took his best shot at actually explaining Geometric Unity to his brother, and one of the things he's brought up in the past has to do with accounting for the kinds of observations that would lead to Everett interpretations of collapse, in his model there's no need for it (I've had this thought before as well, 'Many Worlds' just fails to account for a constant dimension - which I think he's analogizing in his 'cardboard tube' analogy where one's slice of observation is like a hair-band on that tube). He also had a really interesting analogy for what's happening with quantum indeterminacy - he doesn't think it's happening but rather it's a problem of the quantum answering nonsense or poorly phrased questions when the classical world ignores them.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Papus79 »

Papus79 wrote: July 19th, 2020, 12:22 pm He's had some pretty good conversations with other mathematical physicists
I should clarify before my hand gets smacked on this one - he's close to the physics community, working on physics issues, there are a lot of qualified people who take him seriously so he's academia-adjacent but not in academia. By that he's technically not a 'physicist' but something more like an expert-level enthusiast who knows the math by heart.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Atla »

Papus79 wrote: July 19th, 2020, 12:22 pm
Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 11:52 am Weird, I can't say I have encountered this. What I see conveyed is more like the opposite, that we should build much bigger particle accelerators etc., because fundamental physics is kind of stuck since decades.
I find that interesting because I'm somewhat wondering if there might already be some things that punch a hole in that. For example Nima Arkani Hamed's research, particularly the amplitouhedron, makes me wonder if we have objects we could be studying, from what we have now, that could give us more 'bang for the buck' if we wrap our research around mapping those and then seeing how that maps back to fundamental particles.

Also have you listened to any of Eric Weinstein's talks on physics or his Geometric Unity idea or his sense of what the state of String Theory has been since the 80's? He's had some pretty good conversations with other mathematical physicists, like having had both Sir Roger Penrose and Garrett Lisi on The Portal (largely debating with Lisi because he worries that he's wasting his time). He was on his brother Bret's Dark Horse podcast a week or two ago and took his best shot at actually explaining Geometric Unity to his brother, and one of the things he's brought up in the past has to do with accounting for the kinds of observations that would lead to Everett interpretations of collapse, in his model there's no need for it (I've had this thought before as well, 'Many Worlds' just fails to account for a constant dimension - which I think he's analogizing in his 'cardboard tube' analogy where one's slice of observation is like a hair-band on that tube). He also had a really interesting analogy for what's happening with quantum indeterminacy - he doesn't think it's happening but rather it's a problem of the quantum answering nonsense or poorly phrased questions when the classical world ignores them.
I haven't listened to those podcasts, maybe I will if I have the time. Btw I'm someone who has been playing around with heavily modified versions of the MWI for a long time now (my unified theories include 1-2 constant extra dimensions I think). As to me, those kind of interpretations seem to be the case when we take QM literally. But I'm not sure if a bigger particle accelerator, or anything else for that matter, will be able to prove one QM interpretation correct.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Papus79 »

Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 1:02 pm I haven't listened to those podcasts, maybe I will if I have the time. Btw I'm someone who has been playing around with heavily modified versions of the MWI for a long time now (my unified theories include 1-2 constant extra dimensions I think). As to me, those kind of interpretations seem to be the case when we take QM literally. But I'm not sure if a bigger particle accelerator, or anything else for that matter, will be able to prove one QM interpretation correct.
Part of the problem - every organization and bureaucracy wants more money and more people! It's about livelihood and power! They'd probably be asking for bigger accelerators even if they didn't believe it would solve anything and had to sell themselves a story on why the long odds are worth sinking tens of billions more into it.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Atla »

Papus79 wrote: July 19th, 2020, 1:14 pm
Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 1:02 pm I haven't listened to those podcasts, maybe I will if I have the time. Btw I'm someone who has been playing around with heavily modified versions of the MWI for a long time now (my unified theories include 1-2 constant extra dimensions I think). As to me, those kind of interpretations seem to be the case when we take QM literally. But I'm not sure if a bigger particle accelerator, or anything else for that matter, will be able to prove one QM interpretation correct.
Part of the problem - every organization and bureaucracy wants more money and more people! It's about livelihood and power! They'd probably be asking for bigger accelerators even if they didn't believe it would solve anything and had to sell themselves a story on why the long odds are worth sinking tens of billions more into it.
When we look at modern science in general, I don't think the picture is bleak at all. Science is advancing faster than ever (just not in fundamental physics). The truth gets out fast, nowadays often immediately, thanks to modern telecommunication etc. New findings are often so unexpected that not even money and power can prevent or hide their discovery, because those people just don't know what to prepare for. Even mass brainwashing attempts like "we are all holograms" or "we all live in a simulation" don't last long anymore.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Papus79 »

Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 1:37 pm When we look at modern science in general, I don't think the picture is bleak at all. Science is advancing faster than ever (just not in fundamental physics). The truth gets out fast, nowadays often immediately, thanks to modern telecommunication etc. New findings are often so unexpected that not even money and power can prevent or hide their discovery, because those people just don't know what to prepare for. Even mass brainwashing attempts like "we are all holograms" or "we all live in a simulation" don't last long anymore.
It could be that we picked most of the low-hanging fruit with industrial application in the middle of the 20th century but I think we're getting close to needing a new framework in which to think about the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, etc.

One of the things I'm trying to do, and it's taking a while partly because I want to make sure I actually understand what I'm reading but also because I'm working right now almost any hour I'm not sleeping (posting things like this while I wait in builds), I'm going through Sir Roger Penrose 'Road to Reality' and I'm hoping to actually get intuitive touch stones with the math, with spinors, with the Einstein, Yang Mills, and Dirac equations, etc.. Partly because, as a concerned citizen, I want to understand both what this stuff does and doesn't tell us (I don't necessarily trust organizational priorities to tell us the story straight - particularly with funding on the line) and the other more personal part - i want to see what kinds of tool kits and everyday applicability might be available in this sort of mathematics, if there are any, that other people aren't using much yet.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Atla »

Papus79 wrote: July 19th, 2020, 1:44 pm
Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 1:37 pm When we look at modern science in general, I don't think the picture is bleak at all. Science is advancing faster than ever (just not in fundamental physics). The truth gets out fast, nowadays often immediately, thanks to modern telecommunication etc. New findings are often so unexpected that not even money and power can prevent or hide their discovery, because those people just don't know what to prepare for. Even mass brainwashing attempts like "we are all holograms" or "we all live in a simulation" don't last long anymore.
It could be that we picked most of the low-hanging fruit with industrial application in the middle of the 20th century but I think we're getting close to needing a new framework in which to think about the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, etc.

One of the things I'm trying to do, and it's taking a while partly because I want to make sure I actually understand what I'm reading but also because I'm working right now almost any hour I'm not sleeping (posting things like this while I wait in builds), I'm going through Sir Roger Penrose 'Road to Reality' and I'm hoping to actually get intuitive touch stones with the math, with spinors, with the Einstein, Yang Mills, and Dirac equations, etc.. Partly because, as a concerned citizen, I want to understand both what this stuff does and doesn't tell us (I don't necessarily trust organizational priorities to tell us the story straight - particularly with funding on the line) and the other more personal part - i want to see what kinds of tool kits and everyday applicability might be available in this sort of mathematics, if there are any, that other people aren't using much yet.
Well of course we need new frameworks, we don't have any working framework yet at all.

Well I started watching this vid where the Weinstein brothers talk, Eric starts with claiming that we don't know whether or not, at the base level of physics, our concepts are reality or our concepts model reality.
All human thinking is done in models so in that sense of course the latter is the correct one, so I'm not sure if I follow. But not knowing this is more like Western philosophy's failure I guess (the thousands of years old delusional belief in essence, thingness, substance etc.)
True philosophy points to the Moon
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Atla »

Papus79 wrote: July 19th, 2020, 12:22 pm
Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 11:52 am Weird, I can't say I have encountered this. What I see conveyed is more like the opposite, that we should build much bigger particle accelerators etc., because fundamental physics is kind of stuck since decades.
I find that interesting because I'm somewhat wondering if there might already be some things that punch a hole in that. For example Nima Arkani Hamed's research, particularly the amplitouhedron, makes me wonder if we have objects we could be studying, from what we have now, that could give us more 'bang for the buck' if we wrap our research around mapping those and then seeing how that maps back to fundamental particles.

Also have you listened to any of Eric Weinstein's talks on physics or his Geometric Unity idea or his sense of what the state of String Theory has been since the 80's? He's had some pretty good conversations with other mathematical physicists, like having had both Sir Roger Penrose and Garrett Lisi on The Portal (largely debating with Lisi because he worries that he's wasting his time). He was on his brother Bret's Dark Horse podcast a week or two ago and took his best shot at actually explaining Geometric Unity to his brother, and one of the things he's brought up in the past has to do with accounting for the kinds of observations that would lead to Everett interpretations of collapse, in his model there's no need for it (I've had this thought before as well, 'Many Worlds' just fails to account for a constant dimension - which I think he's analogizing in his 'cardboard tube' analogy where one's slice of observation is like a hair-band on that tube). He also had a really interesting analogy for what's happening with quantum indeterminacy - he doesn't think it's happening but rather it's a problem of the quantum answering nonsense or poorly phrased questions when the classical world ignores them.
Hey thanks a lot, you've given me something to listen to. :) Eric looks like a pretty smart guy, it'll be interesting to absorb his thought processes and views. These are the kind of things I'm looking for.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Papus79 »

Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 2:54 pm Hey thanks a lot, you've given me something to listen to. :) Eric looks like a pretty smart guy, it'll be interesting to absorb his thought processes and views. These are the kind of things I'm looking for.
It's a bit hard to describe this perhaps the best way I can phrase it - I've come to see that it's often a sign of competence when people avoid easy 'razzle-dazzle' or the mystique/flash of the particular presentation media, try to reify and 'mundane' the things they're seeing (like the programming engine expert who does his or her presentation on a chalk board), and if they do find something that's really fascinating to them it's because they've reached deep into what would seem like otherwise boring details to most people and found it in the implications. Eric and Sir Roger Penrose both seem to have that embedded in their habits.

Something that Eric beats on often, which I'm really glad he does, is just how tired the double-slit is. It's one thing to wow children by pulling a coin out from behind their ear, it's insulting when they keep trying that trick when you're in your 30's or 40's already.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Atla »

Papus79 wrote: July 19th, 2020, 3:15 pm
Atla wrote: July 19th, 2020, 2:54 pm Hey thanks a lot, you've given me something to listen to. :) Eric looks like a pretty smart guy, it'll be interesting to absorb his thought processes and views. These are the kind of things I'm looking for.
It's a bit hard to describe this perhaps the best way I can phrase it - I've come to see that it's often a sign of competence when people avoid easy 'razzle-dazzle' or the mystique/flash of the particular presentation media, try to reify and 'mundane' the things they're seeing (like the programming engine expert who does his or her presentation on a chalk board), and if they do find something that's really fascinating to them it's because they've reached deep into what would seem like otherwise boring details to most people and found it in the implications. Eric and Sir Roger Penrose both seem to have that embedded in their habits.

Something that Eric beats on often, which I'm really glad he does, is just how tired the double-slit is. It's one thing to wow children by pulling a coin out from behind their ear, it's insulting when they keep trying that trick when you're in your 30's or 40's already.
Trick? I don't know what he means by that, guess I'll have to watch some of his vids.
The way I see it, not only is it not a trick, the implications are probably way beyond what most people realize (the "classical world" being an infinitesimally rare form of quantum behaviour). Anyway, no one can tell for sure, what it is.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Terrapin Station »

Faustus5 wrote: July 19th, 2020, 10:04 am Well, one would have to wonder why you would bring up such a view in the first place if no one seems to hold it. :roll:
Obviously I hold it.
No, a solution posits an explanation which tells us why there is a mismatch between models and reality.
I explained this already. The mismatch is that what's really going on is something instrumentalist, but it's talked about in the guise of realist ontological commitments.

I don't have a problem with instrumentalism. I have a problem with people talking about instrumentalist stuff as if it's not instrumentalist.
Palumboism
Posts: 27
Joined: May 25th, 2020, 1:22 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Nietzsche

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Palumboism »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 16th, 2020, 11:25 am
Faustus5 wrote: July 16th, 2020, 10:27 am

What is "nonsense" about dark matter, dark energy, or wormholes?
They are speculations treated as real things.
That's how science works. When you see something that doesn't make sense, you come up with a hypothesis for the reason why. In this case calculations for many galaxies show they should fly apart based on the amount of matter they have. The math indicates dark matter should be there.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Steve3007 »

Palumboism wrote:That's how science works. When you see something that doesn't make sense, you come up with a hypothesis for the reason why. In this case calculations for many galaxies show they should fly apart based on the amount of matter they have. The math indicates dark matter should be there.
So, putting it more generally, we observe patterns in our observations. We use mathematics as the language to describe those patterns; like English but more precise and quantitative. That then helps us to extrapolate from those patterns and make predictions of future observations. In some cases, the predictions lead to the hypothesis that the best way to describe those future observations would be to propose the existence of some thing. In this case, that something is "dark matter", but in principle it could be anything.

The issue that some people seem to have with this process is that last part. There appears to be a view that jumping from patterns in observations to proposing the ontological existence of "things" whose proposed existence fits the patterns in the observations is going too far. It seems almost like a form of dualism - i.e. a fundamental separation into two parts - between ontology and utility; between what is and what is useful for predicting the results of experiments. In some ways ( but certainly not all ways) it reminds me of the disdain for experimentation that is often traced back to the likes of Pythagoras, and which led, for a thousand years or more (at least in Western Science/Natural Philosophy), to the view that if you want to understand the way that the world is, the one thing you don't do is look at it!
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Modern Science is quackery; here is why

Post by Sculptor1 »

Palumboism wrote: July 20th, 2020, 12:46 am
Sculptor1 wrote: July 16th, 2020, 11:25 am

They are speculations treated as real things.
That's how science works. When you see something that doesn't make sense, you come up with a hypothesis for the reason why. In this case calculations for many galaxies show they should fly apart based on the amount of matter they have. The math indicates dark matter should be there.
Indeed. It's called saving the appearances. They all did it Ptolemy, Aristarchus, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Einstein, and Hoyle.
They all created systems that worked because they were faithful to the evidence.
Better hypothesises can replaces old one but they too are subject to revision - that is what is great about science.
The trick here is not to take it all as gospel.
I'd like to think that religious people would not take the Gospels as gospel - but you can't have everything can you!
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021