What has bothered me most is that as a skeptic, the very reasons I have learned to questioned things as I do in all areas outside of science is due to the queerness or oddness of certain explanations for reality. I apply the same thing to science. But as I began to learn science, in particular, things like the Big Bang, Relativity, etcetera, I discover that the strangeness and non-intuitive ideas are just as popular there as in religion, cults, scams, politics, and everything else. The blanketed trust in the authorities of today’s scientists has no more significant justification without proof as any other subject
The universe is under no obligation to behave according to our intuitive understanding. And, as I said earlier and several people pointed out to you on scienceforums.net, Einstein’s theory has passed every test thrown at it for 100 years, yet you still talk about trust without proof.
For the same reason, I am irritated by the endless requests by professionals within science to demand that we must acquire a full fledged four year degree in order to be even qualified to make a logical argument. If today’s theories are to be trusted by just anyone, the scientist is obliged to present their views in a manner that is either intuitively fair in logical terms to any human ear without the needs to impose a special language prerequisite (math, in this case, for the most part). This is not being done. Any sources available anywhere either intimidates the audience with pompous implications of inadequacies on the part of the listener or they explain some of those theoretical concepts with relative mysticism.
There are many books available that explain myriad science topics without resorting to math, mysticism or condescending tones. Further, if you want to make logical arguments about science you should study philosophy.
I understand relativity as Einstein originally proposed it without the need for the math. But the explanations of it, so far as I have been able to discover, present themselves with severe logical inconsistencies and a claim of an acceptable counterintuitiveness. I do NOT except (sic) that science requires an escape of intuition of normal experience any more than any claims by the paranormal. If it is counterintuitive, the explanation is either false or inadequate to simply accept.
Once again, the universe is under no obligation to meet our intuitive ideas.
For example, the Big Bang, as we are all popularly reminded, is a mere 15 Billion years old. Yet, we are to accept that even though the Solar system is a third of that age, we are just to trust that the evidence proves that rather than question the explanation for it.
Actually, it is 13.82 billion years, and no scientist is asking us to just trust that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. As I pointed out a few posts ago, this is freshman astronomy stuff. Your ignorance is not evidence scientists are asking us to believe anything on mere trust. This is an example of why scientists find it hard to take people seriously when they don’t have a formal education in a given field.
The problem is that the contemporary view is to allow the original composers of a view to take pecedence for their explanations and credit them if the science supports the view INDUCTIVELY, until something new can be experimented with that is unique to the theoretical proposal. It forces us to accept the cultural claims of an explanation and only change by an evolutionary process (ie, keeping the junk DNA, so to speak) rather than allow others to present a new or improved explanation of a theory without proposing anything new.
You say “inductively” as if it is a bad thing, yet inductive reasoning is the essence of science. The scientific method is agnostic to cultural claims and does allow people to present new and improved explanations, but how in the world can you do so without proposing anything new? You are no longer making sense.
Einstein had most of it right. His explanations are in error!!
And yet his theories have passed every test possible for 100 years. Just because Einstein’s explanations disagree with your intuition does not mean his explanations are wrong.
If I propose something that doesn’t alter the math, I don’t need the math to argue it.
At which point you are practicing philosophy, not science. There is nothing wrong with philosophy, but if you don’t understand the distinction you’ll never get anywhere.
It isn’t necessary to require an experiment for every proposed theory. That’s irrational dogma.
You do not understand the meaning of the word “theory.” An idea which cannot be tested is not a theory. This is not irrational dogma, it is the scientific method.
I haven’t proposed anything far fetched in my explanation. It is clear and, according to Occam’s Razor, it’s simpler and even more ‘empirical’ because it is intuitively understandable from anyone’s perspective.
There you go with that intuition stuff again.
I already read why the post in the science forum was moved to “speculation”. I highly disagree with doing so even for the most moronic views because it decision is based on opinions of people who believe in a status quo and feel threatened unreasonably by allowing such views to be taken seriously. I was directly insulted by being placed there because it automatically disrespected my view by POISONING THE WELL!
Then post your idea on a philosophy forum where it belongs.
I like to at least thank some you, like Mike and Steven, for actually reading what I said rather than dismissing me as a nut from just the title. Even nuts have nutritional value.
I actually read what you said too, and I disagree with you. What you are saying is not science. If you want to pursue your idea further I suggest you read some philosophy of science and change course. If you want to study science and try to gain respect for your idea as science you’ll first need to understand the meaning of the word “theory” and why testing ideas is important.