Warp wrote:
>   There's nothing wrong with science, but IMO many scientists seem to be
> way too arrogant and lack humility, even to the point of being unscientific.
> The attitude of many scientists seems to be "since I can't think of any
> other rational explanation, then this explanation must be the Truth, the
> only Truth, and nothing but the Truth, and anyone who doubts that is nuts".

Baloney.  I don't know of anyone who has studied relativity or quantum 
physics that thinks they know the truth of which one is "right", seeing 
as how they're contradictory.

>   Scientists don't seem to learn from past mistakes. For example in the
> late 1800's the general attitude among scientists was that physics was
> more or less complete, 

 From wikipedia, Borh model:

In atomic physics, the Bohr model depicts the atom as a small, 
positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons that travel in 

system, but with electrostatic forces providing attraction, rather than 
gravity. This was an improvement on the earlier cubic model (1902), the 
plum-pudding model (1904), the Saturnian model (1904), and the 
Rutherford model (1911). Since the Bohr model is a quantum-physics based 
modification of the Rutherford model, many sources combine the two, 
referring to the Rutherford-Bohr model.

Sure looks like they figured everything was known, with only four other 
competing theories of the shape of the model at the time.


You're beginning to sound rather fanatical, making up easily refuted 
statements about scientists being just as religious as those who argue 
from lack of evidence.

> how the universe works than newtonian mechanics, then newtonian mechanics
> must be the Truth, 

Even *newton* knew he was wrong, dude.


> arrogant attitude they don't only extrapolated that, but they stated that
> it must be the only Truth, and that physics is complete. We know everything
> there is to know.

Show me where they stated that? Or are you just making up crap or 
repeating what ignorant friends have told you?

>   Then technology advanced, measurement instruments got better, and science
> got a lesson in humility. Our knowledge of physics was far from complete.

They knew that. There were dozens of measured experimental results that 
couldn't be explained in terms of newtonian physics. That's why Einstein 
got a Nobel prize for figuring out the answer to one that had been 
bothering people for a while.  Damn, I'm not even a physicist and *I* 
know this much about it.

I probably know more about the Bible too, is the sad part.

>   Many arrogant scientists struggled for decades, fighting against the new
> evidence. They couldn't admit being wrong. 

You're so full of crap. Bohr came up with the first workable(*) model of 
how an atom is arranged internally in 1911. Einstein won a Nobel prize 
ten years later for explaining that Bohr was wrong and quantum physics 
was right.

How many arrogant scientists had to fight against Einstein to keep him 
from getting a Nobel prize within 10 years?

>   Finally they had to submit and admit that perhaps physics was not complete
> and that there might be something else to it than what they thought.

Unlike religious people, who never admit that.

>   Have scientists learnt anything from this episode? It doesn't seem so.
> They are still arrogant, they still think they know the Truth, the only
> Truth and nothing but the Truth, and simply because they can't think of
> any other explanation. 

They can think of many other explanations. Then they discard those 
explanations because they don't match all the facts.

> anyone who doubts it is nuts and deserves ridicule.

Not at all. Anyone who doubts it *and* claims they have a better 
explanation *and* presents said better explanation that contradicts all 
the facts that the current theories accomidate *and* continue to insist 
they're right in spite of that, those people deserve ridicule.


> Over a hundred years
> ago scientists assumed that they could simply deduce what happens at
> atomic levels, extremely high speeds, etc, without actually "going there".

No, they didn't. They just didn't have any way of testing it, and 
nothing they knew contradicted it. What they didn't accept is angels 
holding up the moon.

> They were wrong. Nowadays scientists assume that they can simply deduce what
> happened millions of years ago, without actually going there. But this must
> be the Truth.

So you propose, instead, that dinosaurs were around 6000 years ago, 
living with man, and Adam eating the tree of knowledge led to the 
creation of weeds and the changing of dinosaurs and lions into carnivores?

There's a saying that goes something like this:
The world is not flat.
The world is not spherical either.
But it's a lot less wrong to say the world is spherical than
   to say the world is flat.

There are differences in degree of wrongness. I ridicule those who can't 
see those differences.

>   History tends to repeat itself. People never learn from past mistakes.
> People are arrogant and think they are omniscient and that they know the
> Truth. Anyone who doubts that deserves ridicule.

Yes, the infamous "Et tu" logic. My religious beliefs are arrogant and 
make me think I am omniscient. My religious beliefs tell me what 
happened back when the world was young. However, scientists also are 
arrogant and think they're right, so they can't be any righter than I am.

Like I said, illogical.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message