[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: starship-design: PseudoScience?

Zenon Kulpa wrote:
> Huh? You will throw me out of my research position?  ;-))

Is hould have specified: that comment wasn't directed at you, but people
that label me as stupid. What I meant was: People may resent calling me
a fool (like the scientists nearby [missisipi] when I mentioned the
monopole idea). I do not wish to throw any of you out of your positions,
even if it was possible. We need more scientists (contactees need not
apply). Sorry I wasn't more clear.
> > Also, have you realized in my last few
> > messages how I don't seem to care much about my ideas anymore?
> > Does this please the group?
> >
> No.
> We were displeased NOT by your CARING for your ideas,
> but by advancing them frocibly with only your holy fervor as the evidence.
> It is quite bad you do not care for them any longer -
> you should still care enough, either to work toward finding
> more hard evidence for them, or toward disproving them
> (you know, the negative result is also a valuable scientific result -
> spares a lot of time of other researchers spent on wandering in
> blind alleys).

Good point. I guess I should continue research. Perhaps something else
useful will be found (medical research, etc.)

> > > 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?
> >
> > I have already began. Closer to 99.99%, I think.
> >
> Good news!
> > > 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.
> >
> > And what do professional scientists do? Generate tens of unsubstantiated
> > ideas and try to see if their true. Thats what I do. I require proof,
> > but I've seen proof to may things still unnacepted by mainstream
> > science.
> >
> Not everything seen as proof (especially by a beginneer in the trade)
> is indeed a proof.
> One of the qualities of a scientist (hard and long to learn too)
> is an ability to find holes and weak spots in "proofs"
> (including his/her own).
> [Remember also Sagan words, and read something about Randi
> and the Skeptical Inquirer.]
> > I hope I live until 2060, just to see how much physics has
> > changed. I'll bet you it will be changed in many a way.
> >
> Easy bet. Everybody knows that much.
> But can you specify what and how it changes?
> If you can, you are really a GREAT scientist (or a Prophet... ;-)

Prophecy is a dangerous thing: make one mistake, and religious fanatics
stone you (literally)! As far as being a great scientist, one that comes
to mind that made many true predictions is Arthur C. Clarke.

> > > The choice is yours.
> >
> > The choice is yes, I am a scientist, and will remain so.
> >
> Good to hear that.
> Provided we understand the word "scientist" in the same way.

I think so.

> Best wishes,
> -- Zenon

And to you,
Kyle Mcallister