Sacred Cows in Science

There is no blinder than the one who does not want to see.

I noticed several times that an a priori opinion cannot be influenced by logical arguments. Who believes will always find ways to demonstrate that he (she) is right and all other are on the error side. Do not loose any more time use it better in other directions.

I would suggest to read the comments on the comment I made "where is the critical eye of the engineer?".

The trick is to be able to know which sacred cows have great value and which are only temporary expedients.

For example, conservation of momentum is one of the absolute foundation stones of modern science and engineering; if that's wrong, almost everything else was merely an illusion. So, an attack on that would be greeted with much derision and hooting.

On the other hand, string theory is a "Johnny-come-lately" that looks like it might be useful, but maybe not. If someone shows it wrong, most of us would drop it like a hot potato.

Europium is a pretty smart person. Perhaps, like me, given to a little hyperbole, but worth reading.

One sacred cow of science has been the "scientific method" of verification. Many scientists live or die by that philosophy, especially if they have two or more PhD's attached to their name. If the test results do not reproduce under identical conditions, then the test results are system artifacts, or worse, and the testing should be discarded. This is a good and essential part of scientific pursuit, and it has carried the scientific community for several generations.

However, the scientific method has little or no value in discovery of new phenomena. Very little discovery has been derived from logical extension of results verified from the scientific method procedures. Perception of test result anomolies have yielded many new discoveries independent of results derived from scientific method endeavors.

Flemings' associates may well have placed "that contaminated petri dish" into cleaning solution since no one at that time placed any value on contaminated cultures. But Fleming had perception and enough insight to realize that a new phenomena had been discovered. Further anaysis and subsequent scientific method verification gave the world penicillin. The same thought goes for the perceptive person who did not throw away the rubber mixture contaminated by a sulfur spill....

These perceptive discoveries were all validated by reproducible test results using scientific method procedure. But what if the phenomena did not reproduce? The perceptive scientist would review his observations, dutifully logged into the company research notebook, and try to understand the anomaly from the vast amount of scientific knowledge available. Then, just before he totally discards the phenomena, he could submit the information to some engineering forum to see if some insight could be gained from the hue and cry generated from the website members. Just kidding, guys, some insight has been gained from our association...

Sacred cows in science are important, but even the scientific method dictates that all sacred cows are subject to critique in light of new physical discoveries... Some, like the conservation of momentum, are well entrenched into our comfort zone, but expansion of system dimensions might reveal anomolies that should be further pursued by the scientific method... Gena

Your argument is akin to saying that, since Columbus supposedly found the West Indies while looking for India, all sailors should throw away their maps and just go sailing about till they find something.

Your ad hominem attack on PhDs (no, I don't have one) also suggests that you are trying to sell us a bill of goods. That's a common tactic when someone lacks facts.

You say "Very little discovery has been derived from logical extension of results verified from the scientific method", but that's completely wrong. Fleming's discovery may have been serendipitous, but the logical extensions of that discovery, all validated by the scientific method, include tetracycline, gentamicin, streptomycin, cephalexin, erythromycin, amoxicillin, ampicillin, etc, etc, etc.

I think you have a valid point of view and you certainly deserve a chance to present it, but not at the expense of the facts.

I watched that thread and on reading this one I rather suspect that you, Gena, are the webmaster of gmxxnet.com. Webmasters seldom, if ever, apologize vicariously for the content of their websites. Say hi to GSC.

Almost correct... GSC just turned 70 after "decades" of scientifice employment with the big guys like IBM and RCA. He recently deactivated his small magnetic radiation laboratory business and concentrates on expansion of his book, "Pseudoscientist". I am a good friend who feels bad that his analysis went awry.

He has always been at the wrong place at the wrong time... He headed a research project at IBM which analyzed catastrophic failures within semiconductor devices. The problem was solid solubility between silicon and phorphorus which created an "illegal" compound, silicon phosphide, and this compound was supposed to be unstable at room ambient. The case for continuing research on silicon phosphide production was put foward, but IBM said that was not part of their business activity. Several years later, Monsanto built several large plants dedicated to silicon phosphide production.. Gena

"Pseudoscientist" is usually a perjorative term. Why is he calling it that?

The title, "Pseudoscientist", was chosen because the author was fatiqued from the incredulity and ridicule received from scientific personnel well versed in scientific method verification procedures. He decided to write this autobiography, derived from test results recorded in his bound research notebooks, with possible future publication on the web. Visit the website and send GSC a personal email if you have further interest...

Thank you for the civility of this email. I have monitored the CR4 webite for over a year, and I am impressed with humor and honesty expressed among the memers. Not so impressed with the diatribe allocated to a new member trying to find a way to communicate with the other members...

GSC has up to 30 years left to organize his notebooks and derive their contents into a working manuscript. Unfortunately he is not in any hurry, retirement does that to a person, and I referenced a website to you guys that is less than 10 percent completed. Future submissions will provide scientific details about each keyword mentioned on the website index page. The hue and cry for "evidence" will not be met until patent disclosures are processed, and dissemination of patent content is essential to protect patent rights.

However, in the spirit of the comaraderie usually express on this website, I present the following technical information:

1. The rumor that magnetic radiation will react with the electromagnetic fields around operating electronic circuits is not true. The idea that this interaction will disable the electronic function during field operation can not be true. Actually, a big purple finger materializes out of nowhere, and pushes the power button into the off mode...

2. The rumor that magnetic radiation penetrates the dermal and epithelial tissue layers and further reacts with cortical control can not be true. Actually the test subject suddenly dances around wildly singing out , "I think I can. I think I can." while tearing his hair out.

3. The thought that military surveillance may occur if magnetic radiation interferes with ELF military communications is just plain dumb. Actually, the military will not take action until the interferance hurts the communication process, and then the perpetrator just disappears and all records of his existance are erased from computer memory.

4. The rumor that magnetic radiation will transform cubic inorganic material into layered hexagonal stacked crystals has to be made up by the researcher. Actually the researcher spilled a drop of Mountain Dew into the test chamber during his caffeine high.

The list could go on, but enough is enough... Gena

What is "magnetic radiation" and how do you measure it? What are fluxions? That is, what do you think they are?

Just curious.