Scientists are panicking because the Webb telescope seems to have disproved the Big Bang Theory pretty conclusively.

submitted by iamonlyoneman from (iai.tv)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]aHobbitsTale 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

I've not read the link, but I will tell you that no true practitioner of the discipline of science is ever beset of panic because of new information that challenges their worldview. They welcome it.

It is only people with an agenda, a desire for hierarchy, or some pre-supposed outcome, that would be bothered by what the instrument reveals.

This is the difference between "the science" and Science. Scientific knowledge is always open to revision, by anybody.

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

"Scientists" are easier to buy than politicians.

[–]Insider 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Academia used to be one of the last lines of truth after the media, church, government, and NGO's became compromised. The CIA then worked their way to infiltrate them too.

Every politician is bought

Only a very small percent of scientists are bought

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

very small percent

The vast majority of "scientists" are bought.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Climate scientists perhaps.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All scientists. The practice of science depends on grant funding. And the funding profile of a typical science professor is far below the sum of the bribes a mid-tier politician receives.

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's not how bribing in science works.

With grants, you come up with a project, apply for a grant and they accept/reject based on the innovation/significance of your proposal in addition to your proven background in the field.

Bribes in science come more so with drug (or other) companies directly giving money to scientists or regulators. Or companies are the ones setting up academics in the first place. Similarly with government, they insert their own controlled scientists into various positions.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Similarly with government, they insert their own controlled scientists into various positions.

Who do you think funds the grants? Don't you think NSF and NIH may have some vested interests that influence the process?

While the scientific review forum does try to rank proposals based on merit, it's still a process that is based on personality and fashion (source: I have participated in these panels). However, the panel simply sends a list of rankings to the officers who choose grants based on "funding priorities". These choices don't necessarily align with the rankings.

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most "scientists", especially the ones in "climate" and "health".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You actually can believe that.

But you don't have to.

There still are topics that seemingly never have "big" changes though a lot of "sciencing" is happening there.

If you dive into specialties of these, there only are small circles which is no actual surprise.

[–]pyropulse 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As someone pursuing a physics degree, there is so much dogma here. I've presented data that contradict 'accepted view,' and they call you a quack and refuse to look at the data.

This is how it works, and the study of paradigm shifts is well known. The 'old guard' laughs and clings to the old, until the mounting evidence completely shatters the old paradigm, thus allowing the new paradigm to enter

Scientists are humans with biases; there are very few that actually live up to the ideal standard

I've looked at some 'alternative' hypothesis that explain the data far better, but my peers literally think of it as flat Earth stuff and refuse to look

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Scientists I've talked with tend to have this stupid belief that they are enlightened compared to the stupid people in the past, certainly I'm happy that we have a better understanding of the world than or forbearers but the hubris to assume we have it right simply ignores that those before also thought they had it right and thought so fervently.

Hell the big bang theory itself was crafted by a Catholic to counter the mainstream scientific view at the time that the universe had existed forever. And the name of the theory was mocking it for being silly. Then as time went on more and more scientists gravitated towards it and it became the mainstream model.

But in light of new data models must always be adjusted or abandoned for better models. A good scientific education should cover many different models. Yes including the flat earth model as well, since it's historically relevant.

[–]RedEyedWarrior 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Too bad that a lot of "scientists" are too egotistical to welcome new information and try to censor it. They're not scientists, they're either activists or they are greedy.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Ah the old "no true scottsman" fallacy. That's a good one.

All science is controlled by propagandists. No "real practitioners" of science exist in the institutions any more. We live in the new dark ages.

Let's be realistic about what they all are and revel in this epic egg on thier face.

[–]LtGreenCo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

"All science is controlled by propagandists" is a contradiction since Science by definition can't be politically biased. The minute you introduce bias into the scientific method, it's no longer the scientific method. So it's not really a no true scottsman fallacy since there is a very clear and well-defined line that cannot be crossed, else the label of 'science' or 'scientist' no longer applies.

So back to OP's point. A scientist would not be panicking from this news. They would not feel as though there's egg on their face because the big-bang has never been a certainty. It is simply the best guess we have given what we can currently observe about the expansion of the universe. But any scientist must concede that there's a lot we still don't know, and any new information that challenges the current wisdom must be welcomed and rigorously studied.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You literally described exactly how the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is constructed as your reasoning for why it is not that fallacy. 🤣

All those fallacies claim that the definition of thier term ("Scotsman" or "scientist") excludes those who can be described by the offending description.

[–]LtGreenCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes I realize there are "scientists" out there who can be bribed into tainting evidence or misrepresenting data, but in doing so they are not practicing science by definition.

Just because an argument follows the pattern of the scotsman fallacy doesn't make it an actual fallacy. E.g. "No true bicyclists have never ridden a bicycle" is logically okay because bicycle riding is a necessary trait of a bicyclist. Just as actually doing science is a necessary trait of a scientist. If you still want to insist they are scientists because their degree or nametag says they are then that's fine, but be clear you are now talking about 'scientist' as a job title, rather than simply 'one who practices science'.

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most of "science" labeled "science" isn't (and never was) science then, if you want to get technical. Most of today's "scientists" aren't being secretly bribed to taint, some are, but that's not how the bigger picture functions. The vast lot of them are already brainwashed retard-globalist-political zealots who are willfully enjoying being paid to poison and taint and misrepresent in the open, presented as legitimate, while they falsely believe themselves to be "scientists" because they're accredited by fellow posers of globalist institutions of the highest order. And it's a big joke to high IQ people who watch these reddit-tier poison-pushing airheads under our scopes.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

All humans are biased. It's true that science should avoid bias but that's an idealized goal rather than an achievable outcome.

Scientists pour their lives into developing theories and they will rabidly defend their life work from detractors even if those detractors are observational reality itself.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That only explains individual bias. That has nothing to do with systemic institutional narratives. Those are carefully crafted and religiously defended.

There is a reason you can't publish anything that contradicts global warming, Trans propaganda, sexual deviance induced by nurture, IQ, etc. Some of it is personal bias, but when all the journals walk in lock step, all the media outlets speak the same script, all the educational institutions teach the same sources it's more than bias, it's an agenda.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Individual bias is influenced by institutional bias which therefore goes onto further influence the institutional bias in the future. I think the main problem is most people prefer to believe blindly in a dogma, to have other people tell them what to think rather than do the mental legwork to evaluate ideas themselves. I think this is why you see such mainstream disdain towards fairly harmless and rediculous movements like the flat earth model. They're scared of it because they are utterly incapable of forming non-emotional arguments against it due to their own scientific illiteracy. And also because it illustrates greatly what happens when people choose to believe in a model over objective experimental results. In a way they really hate those kinds of people because they aren't all that different at their core and it creates a dissonance between what they clearly see as dogmatic viewpoints and their own dogmatic adherence to their viewpoints. In other words, most people don't believe the earth is round because they know it is round and can deduce the shape from experiment, they believe the earth is round because institutions have told them that it is round, and the mere presence of other contradictory models lays bear their inability to deduce their own beliefs and defend them.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If there were people with power manipulating everyone how would that look different than what we see today, and you write off as simply bias?

To me bias just can't explain how everyone with authority always refuses to allow scientifically rigorous facts to contradict certain narratives.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

People in authority with power are biased. It's very simply a matter of follow the money. You make studies that validate the elite you get more funding to do more studies. You go against the grain you don't get funding and have difficulty making more studies.

Most of the powerful elite are just as ignorant of good science as the unwashed masses. They care about money that's about it. It's what happens when science becomes financially incentived and universities become focused on profit rather than immaterial goals.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

People in authority with power are biased. It's very simply a matter of follow the money.

There is a big difference between bias and corruption. People taking money to falsify data, or push a lie are not biased, they are corrupt.

People who "finesse" results are doing the latter.

Most of the powerful elite are just as ignorant of good science as the unwashed masses. They care about money that's about it.

This doesn't make sense. The people in power are the ones corrupting the institutions to push thier narratives. They know it's bullshit. They are paying to spread the bullshit.

It's what happens when science becomes financially incentived and universities become focused on profit rather than immaterial goals.

You have this weird loopy logic going on where you seem to think all the corruption is just circumstantial. That it can somehow just happen without anyone intending for it to happen.

It literally can't. Without bad actors the situation would not look like this.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All your thoughts are controlled by propagandists.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sadly, Astronomy is really bad at science.
I made a long list of problems that you can read at http://saidit.net/s/plasmacosmology/wiki