The Need for Venture Science, by Charles Eisenstein
Category: Health, Science & Technology
Via: james-martin2 • 10 years ago • 13 commentsI 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 .
________________________________
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.
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.
You should post an article about that Larry . I , for one , would like to learn more .
Which flawed idea was that, Larry?
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.
Sure we know jackshit but only big jackshit . The tiny little jackshit is a different matter ...
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 ...
"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?
I always wondered about the butterfly effect in aviation ...