Re: starship-design: PseudoScience?

[Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>]

> From: kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
> 
> I did not say I believed everything in those web pages. Some of these so
> called "Contactees" are about the weirdest people around. 
> 
> I'm currently having to contend with two groups: 
> A: So called "pseudoscientists", who believe every crazy idea 
>    that comes along
> B: So called "hard scientists", who refuse to listen to facts that are
>    unusual or hard to accept.
> 
> Both groups are wrong. We need to have conclusive proof of theory before
> accepting it, but the scientific community needs to listen to new ideas
> and try them. I really don't care if it violates physics, as several
> things have before, and we use them today. The scientific community has
> become hotheaded in thinking we know almost everything there is to know.
> We don't know 1/1000th of what we think we know. I suppose this is human
> nature.
> 
Of course I must agree (mostly...).
However, as someone said, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Scientists making such claims do not cry about "conspiracy"
if other scientists doubt in their claims and ask for more evidence.
And then they work hard to provide that evidence and they withdraw
their claim when hard evidence does not materialize, without
vails of being "not listened to" or otherwise suppressed.
This is how real science works.


> I wonder why no one is cut down when bringing in a concept like
> "cellular universe" or Lorentz contraction, (neither of which has been
> proven, which violates everything said here), 
>
Concerning "cellural universe" it was pure speculation of the 
"what if..." type, nobody discussing it claimed it to be
at all sure and ready for use in designing starships or whatever.
Such discussions on the speculative-hypothetical level are valuable, 
if only to open minds for wider space of possibilities,
provided everybody understands them for what they are -
just speculative-hypothetical thought experiments. 
Concerning Lorents contraction - see the answer by Steve.


> but when I bring up a
> concept, I'm instantly shot down with a barrage of messages
> whose basic line is: don't bring up something you can't prove. 
>
You are not simply "bringing up a concept".
You are additionally claiming that is it sure, 
proven [here a few WWW links], working and ready 
to mount on a starship.
And this certainly may be a little unnerving...


> If you
> want some example of commonly accepted science that has never been
> proved, e-mail me. There's something not right here if unproven ideas
> invented by proffesionals are accepted, but amatuer's ideas are canned.
> 
The answer is simple - professionals, just because of their
professionalism and experience, far more often than amateurs
bring up ideas that are eventually proven to be valid.
This of course does not mean - and nobody at this list said that - 
that amateur's ideas are certainly always wrong,
just because they have been brought up by an amateur.
But they deserve at least the same (or even larger) 
amount of doubt and requests for hard evidence as any others' ideas.
Certainly, the holy fervor of their proponents 
is NOT evidence enough.
Nobody (almost) listened to Wright brothers before
their plane flied safely in the air several times.

> Kyle Mcallister
> 
> P.S.: I'm not taking this personally, but speaking in the name of science.
> 
As it was remarked by Steve, become a scientist before you try
to speak in the name of science.
And I must warn you - it is a very tiresome and often unrewarding job.
Generating great ideas is only a tiny part of it.
99.9% of science is painstaking testing and search for evidence
(and error) - all too often ending with the "false!" answer...
Are you ready for that toil, Kyle?

Otherwise, you will be nothing more than an amateur pseudoscientist,
generating tens of unsubstantiated ideas a minute (that is VERY easy)
and crying about "conspiracies", suppression of thought 
by "hard scientists", and the like.

The choice is yours.

Best wishes,

-- Zenon