Is the scientific community stupid?

I am not a big believer in manipulating words to prove a theory. It still comes back to the basics. If you have nothing and then you have something, then something must have been created from nothing. I have seen the same "logic" used to prove the earth is flat.

 

The particle physics annihilation assumption that needs to be reconsidered according to this research IMO.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10302-antimatter-and-matter-combine-in-chemical-reaction/

The detection of this "particle shrapnel" appears to negate the "matter destroyed" part of the assumption. There should be "shrapnel" at all. There is no doubt some kind of reaction between matter and antimatter but I suspect that our ability to measure the results initially was not as accurate leading to an incorrect assumption.

With better instrumentation (something you know a lot about) it might be possible to get a better handle on what is actually happening.

On top of that we have the issue of the Asymmetrical balance which is still being studied. If there are equal amounts of matter and anti-matter then the universe could not exist. It does so that means that there is an imbalance if we continue to assume that they are annihilating each other.

There is definitely something happening but I suspect that we are still very much in the early stages of particle physics to rely upon the assumptions that we have made to date.

 

How do you pull apart nothing?

 

Just to clear up some things about peer review, because there seem to be some misconceptions.

1) Peer review IS NOT a review of work AFTER it has published, not like consumer reviews of products on vendor's websites.
2) Peer review happens BEFORE publication of an article, used by the publisher to determine whether the work is scientifically sound and novel.
3) Peer reviewers CAN NOT determine whether a study is accurate. However, they CAN raise red flags when experiments appear to be done in a sloppy way, interpretations are going beyond what the data show, data appear to have been tampered with, images photoshopped etc. Mostly, when such red flags are identified, the manuscript is rejected. Thus, peer review DOES acts as some sort of filter, i.e. quality control.
4) Peer review CAN contain opinion. This opinion is mostly not about the veracity and quality of the actual data. It is about whether the study is novel or not. Often, high quality work is rejected because it is deemed what is called "incremental", i.e. it does not show a paradigm shift in knowledge, but rather confirms already existing knowledge.
5) Review articles summarizing knowledge in a field ARE NOT peer review. They are, however, peer reviewed. These articles CAN contain opinion, but this opinion is mostly on what is known and what is still unknown in a certain field of study, and what the "hot" areas of study are.
6) Grants are peer reviewed in the same process, but here opinion about novelty is even more important. Having a grant reviewer say that your work is incremental is the kiss of death.

This comes from someone who has published 70+ peer-reviewed scientific papers and has reviewed 100s of manuscripts and grant proposals for 40+ scientific journals and granting agencies, including editorial experience.

 

Science has made gods obsolete. It was the rejection of god stories that made modernity possible. Without science people would still be living as they did in Medieval times, when life was still brutal and short.

If it wasn’t for those godless heathen, electricity, the computer, and the internet would have never been developed and you would not be able to come onto this forum and post what you post. Think about that. You can only come here and complain about godless heathen because godless heathen have made it possible for you to do so.

 

My point is that peer review does not guarantee anything as some people have claimed. Necessary, but it does not review all doubt.

 

If you really believe this I would suggest you look into Darwins theory of evolution and study its flaws.

Evolution doesn’t adequately explain life’s origins or complexity

Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

Canadian musician Leonard Cohen once said, “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.” Perhaps the ever-widening cracks in the theory of evolution will let some of the light of God’s truth shine into the scientific world.

Read more here:
https://world.wng.org/content/evolutionary_scientist_admits_theory_s_major_flaws

 

From my point of view, science is mostly apolitical. But then most scientists do tend to lean liberal. In fact, liberalism, classic liberalism, is the political outgrowth of scientific thought.

However it is a characteristic of the Evangelical crowd to reject science. Since the Republican Party has become a partnership between right wingers, those who think the wealthy should rule, and the Evangelical crowd, rejecting science has become part of the political platform of the Republican Party.

 

Not rejecting science. Questioning science, which is how it should be.

 

Self admitted THEIST sources have no credibility when it comes to actual Science. This is yet another OUT OF CONTEXT load of hyperbolic nonsense.

 

Even Richard Dawkins would agree that Darwin’s theory had plenty of shortcomings. However, between Darwin’s time and now, a lot of research has been done, and like everything else, the theory has evolved. DNA was unknown to Darwin, yet it is at the core of modern evolution theory.

That one’s ancestry can be determined by evaluating one’s DNA more or less validates the theory.

 

Nothing done by anything will remove "All Doubt" in everyone, everywhere. Peer review allows for verification or dispute of concept or theory to reach a level of consensus and is the best model we have to evaluate accuracy and truth. You are performing peer review right now as are we, you simply seem to be in a minority as far as consensus.

 

At issue here would be the Question being asked...You do not question scientific theory by asking or bantering about mythology.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I consider myself a fairly technical person with a background in math, chemistry, physics, engineering and meteorology. I learn by questioning and discussing which is what I said and have been doing.

 

What is this minority you are saying I belong to?

 

It is something that keeps coming up in the literature. I think I even read something where Feynman talked about it. There are instances in theoretical particle physics where a particle can “borrow” a great deal of energy, seemingly violating the laws of physics, as long as it is used for a very short time, over a very short distance, and it “gives” it all back. In the end, all that matters is the equations equal out at the end, but along the way there can be plenty of inequalities. This is but an example. In science writings there tends to be theoretical/philosophical discussions that try to make sense of the data, the theories, and the implications in the real world. It may just be shop talk, but I find it interesting. It comes up in internet science forums.

It comes back to the conservation laws. If matter can not be created or destroyed, where did it come from? What is it made of? What if it was made of nothing? It happens all the time in mathematics. One can add anything to one side of an equation, as long as one adds the thing to the other side as well. And you can even divide zero, which is what differential calculus was designed to do.

So, what if all of the universe added up to zero. And whatever we experience as matter is just a part of that. That at some point, all of the universe could come together and once again become nothing.

 

The scientific community gave you the ability to sit in front of a computer screen and ask stupid questions.

 

I think that is the basic theory. That the universe exists because for some reason, matter overpowered antimatter. It could have been caused by the fact that some particles are their own antiparticle, and through a series of high energy interactions end up more likely to become matter than antimatter. Or it could have something to do with dark matter or dark energy, neither of which much is known about, hence the use of dark in the names.

 

Not to sound cynical or anything, but I think that the primary purpose of the peer review process is to protect the scientific journal. An editor can’t know everything so he sends transcripts to knowledgeable people for their opinions, to evaluate what is reasonable. After all, the better journals are better because they present better science.

It is probably a bit like a cooking magazine. A reputable magazine would have an independent cook give a try at submitted recipes before publishing them.

 

Just as we have Theoretical Physics we also have Theoretical Math and both are just inspirational curiosity about what ifs as opposed to things that can actually be measured.

In essence "separating nothing into two somethings" can be expressed in math terms as 0/2 = X. One could even continue to play this math game to the point where we divide 0 by infinity and have an infinite number of nothings.

But whether we have 2 nothings or an infinite number of nothings when we add them all together the end result is always nothing. To believe that it is anything else is just a mind game. Great fun but not reality.

 

The acceptability of a scientific idea comes not from the reviewer, but by the acceptance by thousand of readers.

Most scientific articles are written for scientists and other technical people. Many are not understandable to the uninitiated.

 

I agree with that. Golem, does not. Quoting Golem from that same thread. "Rarely does one see nonsense of this magnitude. What scientists believe is absolutely irrelevant in Science. Only thing that matters in Science is what they can prove. And the only way to "prove" things that exists is by producing peer-reviewed studies. Science is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship of peer-reviewed studies."

 

because even matter at some level decays.

 

Golem
Let me preface by saying the thread was designed to open a discussion... not to express an opinion

but that raises the problem of what is considered “proof”. Even within the narrow context that you have specified

certainly you have noticed that many people think the peer review system is deeply flawed... and so reject most any science

And there is some evidence of problems with peer review. For instance... in theory the finding there was peer reviewed science behind physician suggestions that we do not eat eggs or butter. Now eggs are not so bad and butter is better than the margarine alternative. Science has become so arcane that a person has to be somewhat of savant to properly evaluate what is presented as peer reviewed science.

then, added to the confusion is the media presentation of peer reviewed science..., this media presentation is all that most of us will ever consider.... but frequently they misrepresent the science for various reasons.

then you have enthusiasts like al gore... these people may be well intentioned but, and they claim to present “the science’... but they present a picture that is so distorted as to discredit the underlying science

Further, when does something become “proven?” After one article, or ten, or 100? Is it proven if other scientists have alternate ideas? For example.... for many years the consensus medical science was sure that they understood the cause and treatment of ulcers.... but they were wrong. So should one disregard medical advice because it is not proven and may be wrong?

then there is the uncomfortable fact that we live most of our lives moving through clouds of uncertainty. At virtually every moment we make choices that are based on our guess about what will be best to do. What should you major in? Which house should you buy? Which vitamins should you take? Is now the right time to have children? Which investment strategy should you pursue? Should you vote for a candidate you do not like but who seems the lesser of two evils?

 

I am sure that most people are rather clueless to peer reviewed articles. After all the premier scientific journal, Science, has a readership of less than half a million people. The papers are written for other scientists, not the general public.

However, it seems I read an article, maybe it was the letter from the editor in I think Physics Today, about global warming. It was about how the global warming denial crowd kept trying to get their papers published, but kept getting rejected, mostly for not being science. It has reached the point where any person calling themself a physicist and denying global warming, loses all credibility.

Don’t know why but it seems to me that it is the evangelical crowd, unable to get published, their fraudulent version of science, that have been complaining about the peer review process. It is a characteristic of Christian “science”. There is a reason that it is rejected. It is bad science and has nothing to do with politics.

Back in the 90’s, the journal Science published an article detailing the lack of religiosity among scientists. Among physicist and biologists, belief was less than 10%. Over all, scientists are the least religious group in the country, and the world. Even mathematicians, who are the most religious, less than half are. Anyhow soon after the evangelical publicans and preachers were claiming the opposite. They claimed less than 10% of scientists rejected god. In the scientific community it was seen as another example of the duplicity upon which religion is based.