╌>

The Need for Venture Science, by Charles Eisenstein

  

Category:  Health, Science & Technology

Via:  james-martin2  •  10 years ago  •  13 comments

The Need for Venture Science, by Charles Eisenstein
I just spent several hours down a rabbit hole. The topic was the "electric universe," an unconventional cosmological theory that emphasizes electromagnetism rather than gravity as the primary structuring force of the universe. It offers alternative explanations of redshift, cosmic background radiation, cosmogenesis, star formation, galaxy formation, solar physics, and more.
After refamiliarizing myself with the theory (it has been ten years since I first explored it) I proceeded to read a number of its critics (most of whom used the term "debunking"). What a fool I'd been for giving such a theory, "popular on the Internet," any credence! The critics pointed out elementary errors that proponents of the Electric Universe (EU) commit, revealing them as little more than cranks and crackpots. Case settled, right?
Not quite. Next, I read some responses to the debunkers, which refuted the criticisms point by point in considerable depth. Whom am I to believe? I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, and even if I did it apparently would be of little use, since many of these experts who so violently disagree with each other have Ph.D.'s themselves.
- continued >>>
The original of this article was posted today in the Huffington Post .
________________________________

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
J Martin
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  J Martin    10 years ago

I'm quite aware of the various problems with Establishment Science (if we can call it that) which Eisenstein speaks to. And I think it's a very important point. But I do worry that too much distrust of scientific consensus can lead to terrible consequences. For example, global warming / climate change. The social and political agenda of responding to climate change as a dire risk to life as we know it has been attacked by massively funded disinformation campaigns ... not by scientists, but by Public Relations hacks who use obvious techniques of fraud and disinformation to convince some portion of the public that climate science and its consensus ("if any") is too immature and uncertain to act upon now. "Let's give it a few more decades to mature." But in those decades, if we don't act with resolve almost immediately, the consequences of our inaction could well be the kicking in of many tipping points beyond which no future action could matter.

_________________

To whomever deleted the accidental multi-posting of this thread, sorry... and thanks.

 
 
 
J Martin
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  J Martin    10 years ago

The accidental multiple postings have been deleted by one of the mods, who beat me to the task by a second and a half. Thanks for letting me know.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Quiet
link   Larry Hampton    10 years ago
"The canonical paradigms of science have enjoyed a long tenure. Is that due to their correctness - or is it due to the exclusion of the innovators, the risk-takers, and the mavericks who don't receive the support that scientists of an earlier generation received?"I wonder how long it will be before the educated masses realize that science, and the scientific method, was thrown for tail-spin a hundred years ago or so? That much of the explanation about our world as interpreted by science, is built on a flawed idea?
 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober    10 years ago

You should post an article about that Larry . I , for one , would like to learn more .

 
 
 
J Martin
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  J Martin    10 years ago

Which flawed idea was that, Larry?

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Quiet
link   Larry Hampton    10 years ago

The idea presented by the Scientific Method, that the workings of the physical world may be discovered by applying experiments (reproducing phenomena),to prove theories. We havewholeheartedly acceptedfor so long that our observations in these experiments prove something, that we completely ignore that the Scientific Method is a dinosaur.Quantum Mechanics has shown us clearly , that the experiments themselves and the observing of them, the phenomena we attempt to reproduce, is affected by the actual observation itself! We are not outsiders observing without affect, we are apart of the reality of the phenomena itself and have an affect on the observations themselves. Our mere presence cannot be removed from the observation (at least not in any way I can think of). And we don't know how or why. Iow, we don't know jackshit like we think we do.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober    10 years ago

Sure we know jackshit but only big jackshit . The tiny little jackshit is a different matter ...

 
 
 
J Martin
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  J Martin    10 years ago

Larry H.:

"Quantum Mechanics has shown us clearly , that the experiments themselves and the observing of them, the phenomena we attempt to reproduce, is affected by the actual observation itself!"

I'm VERY far from expertise on this topic, but I will concede that certain experiments / observations under certain very specific conditions do seem to result in ... shall we call them "weird" findings? The weirdest events seem to be those at the very smallest of scales, such as at the sub-atomic levels.

I'm genuinely clueless as to why "observations" of matter at normal, everyday scales (tables, chairs, cats, dogs) should not be of a kin with "observations" of much smaller objects -- if indeed sub-atomic particles can be said to be "objects".

Wikipedia says about the observer effect in physics ...

In science , the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.

The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

Historically, the observer effect has been confused with the uncertainty principle

(physics)

"The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques."

"can often be reduced".... Hmm. But can it always? Hmm?

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Quiet
link   Larry Hampton    10 years ago
It's probably a good idea to make sure of the affect we're talking about. The Observer Effect is different that the Uncertainty Principle (from the same WIKI article)."Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[6] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[7] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[8] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.[9]""Since the uncertainty principle is such a basic result in quantum mechanics, typical experiments in quantum mechanics routinely observe aspects of it. Certain experiments, however, may deliberately test a particular form of the uncertainty principle as part of their main research program."Think about that for a minute.The presence of any observer at the quantum level is actually participatory, as are all other "observers".And,,,,even the very name, "Uncertainty Principle" is indeed descriptive of not only the effect, but our relationship with that effect.I don't want folks to confuse as well my own take on science in general. It's not that I don't find value in Science, it's that I think we've merely scratched the surface in so many ways, that we are cocky and, too full of shit in our technological application of science, which is a reflection of the practice, the disciple,the very discourse itself that is the bastion of science.We,ve got a ways to go before were are gonna be completely grown up enough wield our gifts in a truly constructive manner.
 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober    10 years ago

I always wondered about the butterfly effect in aviation ...

 
 

Who is online

Just Jim NC TttH
Right Down the Center
Nerm_L
Snuffy


46 visitors