Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativistic aberration
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 18:08:51 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <7f383eca3ec4616e72373eac4d772e77@www.novabbs.com>
References: <QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp> <65a73d72df3e6413ef3bd691f93dfa8a@www.novabbs.com> <17eb0d581e6ab05b$286747$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <03d91192917665366eed4777e19eeaba@www.novabbs.com> <v9e72s$3fish$3@dont-email.me> <28e6191fe1b0d86de8d155cedeb6592c@www.novabbs.com> <v9fmve$3t7j7$2@dont-email.me> <1ba79173ec9450b5c84be28c9f1964c0@www.novabbs.com> <v9fojc$3t7j7$5@dont-email.me> <964f235bdecde9d651c4352ec86d1fea@www.novabbs.com> <GJV9qXRqd8YR9_jKHPyTEFOBplg@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2464401"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$hR4Pn.HtyZqXQ6U52HZ6gOSkCQqivjfBL1lJmnjILBdjBwMHYR4oO
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4930
Lines: 97

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:29:48 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>   Should we believe EVERYTHING scientists say?

Of course not.  Particularly when expressing opinions.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal
more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic
and argument than others.”  -- Douglas Adams

And when they're presenting data, consider how it fits
in with previous data.  And wait for independent confir-
mation.

Consider the Gran Sasso report of FTL neutrinos.  I
doubted it because it didn't fit with extended SR.
And I was right.

> There is something quite strange about human beings
> from a behavioral point of view. They say that we must
> form our own ideas, have free will, and not swallow
> everything we hear.
>
> But I have often noticed that they do the opposite.
> I have never understood this discrepancy.
> Don't laugh, friends, but it is quite logical, in the
> human system, that people like the buffoon Python
> accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, because I am
> immensely more Cartesian than him insofar as I practice
> methodical doubt (which has saved my life at least once).

"I try to be skeptical of everything (I don't believe
there's any other way to learn about how the world really
works)." -- Lawrence M. Krauss

> Let's take the case of Python. What could be less
> scientific than this guy who swallows everything?

But, he categorically doesn't.

> The guy, you tell him that four days after its
> first outing, the Titanic hit a flying saucer, he
> swallows it,

I doubt that :-)

> and those who doubt, he attacks them, he humiliates
> them, he harasses them, he beats them up like an
> Orwellian police bob.

Like opinions, some doubt is more rational than other
doubts.  Wozniak's doubts, for example, are quite
irrational.  Some of yours are, too.

> Incapable of questioning an idea that was instilled
> in him (he read it in the newspapers) he swallows it
> without even making a face.

This is contrary to the facts, Richard.

> Should we believe what scientists say? Should we
> believe what the media say? For him, yes, we must
> swallow everything and not think.

I think his pronouncements are much more valid than yours.

> Personally, I am a conspiracy theorist and damn, I
> love it.  I think we must apply methodical doubt.
> And me, when someone tells me that the Titanic hit
> a flying saucer, I don't believe it at all. The ship
> was poorly designed enough not to break apart in
> half on its own in the middle of the ocean just
> hours after it was launched.
> Problem: it's too inexpressible. What will entire
> nations think of us if we reveal that Royal Navy
> ships break apart on their own as soon as they
> are launched? We had to invert a flying saucer, and
> millions of little Pythons would not only swallow
> it all, but declare total war on conspiracy
> theorists and other doubters.
>
> R.H.

I think you're being a conspiracy theorist about
Python :-)
So who do you think he's conspiring with?  Looks to
me like that would be physicists who have lots and
lots of data to support their theories.

Argue against authoritarian dictates, fine, but
arguing against data may or may not be fine.  If
you believe it to be BAD data, find out why it's
bad - or wait for someone else to find out.

This applies to theories, too.  I did that in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.  You, OTOH, was
skeptical.  Seems to me you were "Incapable of
questioning an idea that was instilled" in you :-)