Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> are not willing to challenge 
> the conventionalism of general believes I'd say you don't have an mind 
> openness big enough to understand what his POV is and what he is saying 
> actually.

>   He says in one of his videos that the majority of the scientist 
> community would ridicule him and others that dare to think different 
> from the big bang followers.

  You see, that's very typical pseudoscientist talk: Basically, there's
a world-wide conspiracy between scientists to have only one true theory of
everything, and any alternative theories are shut down and ridiculed for
the sole reason that they are incompatible with the one true theory.
Scientists are very closed-minded and are not willing to even consider
alternative theories.

  Of course pseudoscientists like to talk like this because it gives them
more credibility. They want to give the layman the impression that the
"scientific community" consists of old farts who are fixated into one
single old theory, have a strong resistance to change and are not even
willing to consider or study alternatives. The pseudoscientist wants to
give an impression of himself as being an innovator, someone who thinks
out of the box, who is not stagnated by historical (and often untrue)
theories, and that he is fighting the good fight against the "scientific
community" who is ridiculing him and shutting him down.

  But naturally this is just a bunch of lies, and has nothing to do with
reality.

  The scientific community consists of thousands and thousands of different
people from around the world, from different cultures and different
ideologies. They are not just one single entity who are brainwashed by
some central organization to believe in one scientific theory without
question. They are individual, rational people, and most of them are from
countries and cultures which have absolutely no interest in advocating
some theory from some other culture (eg. the US or Europe) if they know
or suspect that the theory may not be believable in the scientific sense.

  And most of them are certainly innovators and open-minded, who are very
ready to consider and study alternatives. Nothing would reward a scientist
more than being able to publish a paper about a brand new hypothesis or
even theory, which other scientists could study, measure and test, and
as a result of this could be considered scientifically sound.

  The main problem with pseudoscientists is that they usually present
hypotheses which are not measureable, testable nor falsifiable. These
hypotheses are of little scientific value. The pseudoscientist will then
complain that the scientific community doesn't take him seriously because
of this. Then they will just start ranting how the scientific community
is stagnated and doesn't accept new ideas.

  However, science just doesn't work that way. Hypotheses must be based
on measurements and must be falsifiable. Experiments must be repeatable
and their results verifiable. Else it's of little use.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message