What Is Bad Science?

MixedMelodyMindBender

Active Member
I think this question is going to bring in many subjective answers. Following hindsight I think it needs to be expanded more for some. Personally I think of Nuclear Arms ...Nerve Gas.....DDT..Etc..to be bad humans.. I don't see a logic in blaming the science, blame the people using the tool. Its not the mediums fault rather the thinker behind the pen.

Humans have a Bad capacity for Evil.

So, What is Bad Science? Merely Humans doing bad deeds. Science is not a matter of good or bad. But I could be wrong, and in that case, do as I always recommend...Think for Yourself :)
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I think this question is going to bring in many subjective answers. Following hindsight I think it needs to be expanded more for some. Personally I think of Nuclear Arms ...Nerve Gas.....DDT..Etc..to be bad humans.. I don't see a logic in blaming the science, blame the people using the tool. Its not the mediums fault rather the thinker behind the pen.

Humans have a Bad capacity for Evil.

So, What is Bad Science? Merely Humans doing bad deeds. Science is not a matter of good or bad. But I could be wrong, and in that case, do as I always recommend...Think for Yourself :)
I think the original question was not about "good science/engineering put to bad ends", which you describe, but a line of inquiry or induction that uses either bad premises or bad process. The initial Cold Fusion results were eventually proven to be bad science.

Interesting split here between "technically bad" and "morally/ethically bad". Perhaps an example of a scientific endeavor that was both would be Lysenkoist "genetics". cn
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
I think the original question was not about "good science/engineering put to bad ends", which you describe, but a line of inquiry or induction that uses either bad premises or bad process. The initial Cold Fusion results were eventually proven to be bad science.

Interesting split here between "technically bad" and "morally/ethically bad". Perhaps an example of a scientific endeavor that was both would be Lysenkoist "genetics". cn
...s'up U-Gene? :)
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
The earth centered universe and the flat earth ideas were supported by the leading minds of the time, were they not?
They were not.
Earth centered and flat earth ideas were around because of popular misconception and religious beliefs, not because of science. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere and proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system.
Explain to me how...
1) if the universe is expanding and all galaxies are moving away from each other, why are galaxies colliding? Local effects of gravitation. There are regional clusters of galaxies that are gravitationally bound but are still moving away from other galaxies and clusters.

2) if the Big Bang happened just shy of 14 billion years ago, why is the radius of the known universe somewhere around 46 billion light years? is everything traveling at more than 3 times the speed of light? Space is expanding...fast. If it was expanding at the speed of light, we wouldn't be able to see any distant stars or galaxies as their light couldn't outpace the expansion. Where do you get 3 times the speed of light from?
On another note, what if the observational data that supports the BBT is flawed? In other words, what if the "red shift" is not evidence of perpetual expansion but caused by something else? Then the science will change to reflect the new findings.
Observational research is dependent upon the validity of the data. If the observations are incorrect because of circumstances unknown, then the conclusions drawn from said data is also flawed.
This is true but until someone can demonstrate that there are circumstances that should affect our conclusions about our observations, we will continue to accept the current paradigm. You are essentially saying that maybe we are wrong so we should give up.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
They were not.
Earth centered and flat earth ideas were around because of popular misconception and religious beliefs, not because of science. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere and proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system.

This is true but until someone can demonstrate that there are circumstances that should affect our conclusions about our observations, we will continue to accept the current paradigm. You are essentially saying that maybe we are wrong so we should give up.
Aristotle believed in the geocentric universe and was enforced by the Roman Catholic church, as was the flat earth theory. I know that many believed otherwise but my point is that throughout history, wrong ideas have been promoted and protected by those who have that power.

I have always heard "everything is moving away from everything else", so why do galaxies cluster?

If matter from the BB, 14b years ago, expanded at the speed of light, the radius of the universe would be 14b light years but it is not, the radius of the universe is said to be 46b light years. In other words, if I take off and travel at light speed for 14b years, how far did I travel? 14b light years. 46÷14=3.29 But , of course, the universe is NOT expanding at the speed of light,so it has to be somewhat less than 14b light years in radius.

The only thing slower to change than politicians is scientists.

The Big Bang theory originated in 1927 with Georges Lematre, a Catholic monk. 2 years later, Edwin Hubble announced his "red shift" findings, which supported the BB theory thus the church's beliefs.

Someone has already demonstrated that the "red shift" is questionable... see William G. Tifft. Though his idea was controversial, the Astrophysical Journal published his papers and concluded that there were no errors in his findings, yet they could not endorse said findings.

Now, you are playing that game of trying to make me look ridiculous by putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said anyone should give up.
What I am saying is that if scientists were honest, they would investigate alternate theories instead of condemning them. Science is a lot like religion because so much has to be believed without evidence and sometimes in direct conflict with the evidence. Scientists, like many others, develop an interest in the status quo and it is dangerous for their careers to question it. So, just like religion, they will continue on down a road, even if it is the wrong road.
"Occasionally, men stumble over the truth but pick themselves up and rush off as though nothing happened."
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Aristotle believed in the geocentric universe and was enforced by the Roman Catholic church, as was the flat earth theory. I know that many believed otherwise but my point is that throughout history, wrong ideas have been promoted and protected by those who have that power.

I have always heard "everything is moving away from everything else", so why do galaxies cluster?

If matter from the BB, 14b years ago, expanded at the speed of light, the radius of the universe would be 14b light years but it is not, the radius of the universe is said to be 46b light years. In other words, if I take off and travel at light speed for 14b years, how far did I travel? 14b light years. 46÷14=3.29 But , of course, the universe is NOT expanding at the speed of light,so it has to be somewhat less than 14b light years in radius.

The only thing slower to change than politicians is scientists.

The Big Bang theory originated in 1927 with Georges Lematre, a Catholic monk. 2 years later, Edwin Hubble announced his "red shift" findings, which supported the BB theory thus the church's beliefs.

Someone has already demonstrated that the "red shift" is questionable... see William G. Tifft. Though his idea was controversial, the Astrophysical Journal published his papers and concluded that there were no errors in his findings, yet they could not endorse said findings.

Now, you are playing that game of trying to make me look ridiculous by putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said anyone should give up.
What I am saying is that if scientists were honest, they would investigate alternate theories instead of condemning them. Science is a lot like religion because so much has to be believed without evidence and sometimes in direct conflict with the evidence. Scientists, like many others, develop an interest in the status quo and it is dangerous for their careers to question it. So, just like religion, they will continue on down a road, even if it is the wrong road.
"Occasionally, men stumble over the truth but pick themselves up and rush off as though nothing happened."
...this is a contender for why I should have a like button to click.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Now, you are playing that game of trying to make me look ridiculous by putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said anyone should give up.
What I am saying is that if scientists were honest, they would investigate alternate theories instead of condemning them. Science is a lot like religion because so much has to be believed without evidence and sometimes in direct conflict with the evidence. Scientists, like many others, develop an interest in the status quo and it is dangerous for their careers to question it. So, just like religion, they will continue on down a road, even if it is the wrong road.
"Occasionally, men stumble over the truth but pick themselves up and rush off as though nothing happened."
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion. -Carl Sagan
 

snowmanexpress

Well-Known Member
Well, I was reading how far the Hubble can view. So I see that number is "14b away." Is that where they get 14b? And I see the word "parsect"? To me that looks like computer terms as in kilobyte, or megabyte, I think they are just shortening the 1000 to 1 basically almost. But it's kinda funny how you get that 3.29 number by dividing the 14b, which is close to the speed of light? But I don't think that it's relative to the radius because space is not as you said expanding at the speed of light. Right? I think were just throwing numbers, but I think the descriptor you are looking for mr. neut's is why its 46. The parsect thing tho yo, and comparing it to kilobyte or megabyte, but it looks like the abbreviation for parsect is pc?


The current comoving distance to the particles which emitted the CMBR, representing the radius of the visible universe, is calculated to be about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the current comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is calculated to be 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years),[1] about 2% larger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Aristotle believed in the geocentric universe and was enforced by the Roman Catholic church, as was the flat earth theory. I know that many believed otherwise but my point is that throughout history, wrong ideas have been promoted and protected by those who have that power.
Science doesn't wield any power per se.
I have always heard "everything is moving away from everything else", so why do galaxies cluster?
I told you, the same reason we have galaxies to begin with, gravity.
If matter from the BB, 14b years ago, expanded at the speed of light, the radius of the universe would be 14b light years but it is not, the radius of the universe is said to be 46b light years. In other words, if I take off and travel at light speed for 14b years, how far did I travel? 14b light years. 46÷14=3.29 But , of course, the universe is NOT expanding at the speed of light,so it has to be somewhat less than 14b light years in radius.
You misunderstand. The universe itself is expanding. The more distant galaxies are moving away faster than close ones but the rate of expansion is the same everywhere, about 71 kilometers per second, per Megaparsec or 7% every billion years.

The only thing slower to change than politicians is scientists.
Ridiculous and categorically untrue. They change as fast as the evidence comes and gets confirmed.
The Big Bang theory originated in 1927 with Georges Lematre, a Catholic monk. 2 years later, Edwin Hubble announced his "red shift" findings, which supported the BB theory thus the church's beliefs.
The church agreeing with science is not the norm, most of the time they are at odds with science. The church has no power over science like it did in Galileo's time. I'm not sure what you are insinuating.
Someone has already demonstrated that the "red shift" is questionable... see William G. Tifft. Though his idea was controversial, the Astrophysical Journal published his papers and concluded that there were no errors in his findings, yet they could not endorse said findings.
link?
Now, you are playing that game of trying to make me look ridiculous by putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said anyone should give up.
What I am saying is that if scientists were honest, they would investigate alternate theories instead of condemning them. Science is a lot like religion because so much has to be believed without evidence and sometimes in direct conflict with the evidence. Scientists, like many others, develop an interest in the status quo and it is dangerous for their careers to question it. So, just like religion, they will continue on down a road, even if it is the wrong road.
"Occasionally, men stumble over the truth but pick themselves up and rush off as though nothing happened."
You talk about alternate theories, like what? Which scientific theories have been condemned because they weren't honest instead of getting rid of bad science or pseudoscience? It is not dangerous for scientists to challenge the status quo, we live for it. Proving other scientists wrong is what gets us ahead in our fields. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 

snowmanexpress

Well-Known Member
Would you say it's just a matter of time, to see to the edge of space?! Wow, I wonder if we would fall off the edge lol. (get it, matter of time..... nerd laugh I crack myself up)

Hey wait a parsec, (lol im good) are "most" supernovae observable at the edge of space?? Which doesnt make sense to me, because you'd "think" those stars exploded first on the "edge" and be older, but, due to speed of light, in reality to us, since it's so far away, we'd observe the edge as being YOUNGER than then we are here? No way. Is that right? Or is that just due to our GPS location of Earth? And they would have to take into consideration how far the hubble is from Earth of course, Im sure it's not far, into the equation right, but Im sure it's minimal and insignificant because the Hubbs can't go that far?

I wonder if the radius of space is really a ball shape......hmmmmmm
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure that any of the popular cosmological models, especially Big Bang hold up any more.
Hubble's contribution of Red Shift measurement depends on a steady something, so it can be a constant.
- steady speed of light
- steady expansion rate of the universe

We don't have #2 and I'm beginning to have my doubts about even #1.

Interesting also is the BBT depended on an Inflationary model, supraliminal expansion before photons were first emitted. The IM was to account for newly discovered atomic particles back in the '90s.
Worked OK, if not preposterously so. But, now with Dark this and that, IM is not really accounting for
everything, IMO.

We observe a variablity in expansion rate of space itself...acclerating now. When did that start? How long will it go on w/the acceleration? Does the rate of change, change? What is the driver of the acceleration?

And even without all that, the center of the universe in BBT is not even in our timespace. Our universe is a blast front of Matter Energy Space and Time. Big Bang. Really? Then a ballon skin as NASA still describes it for children?

How thick is the skin? Where are we in the skin? What is the radius of this skin?

Also, there is no evidence that light is forever. Maybe it just burns out after 18 billion years or so?
That background radiation could just be the glow just over the edge of our "universe horizion," as light
fuzzes naturally to no energy left.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Science doesn't wield any power per se.
What about the scientist's employer or the benefactor who funds the research or the government that legislates what can be researched and what cannot or the scientist who has strong religious values influencing his thinking?

I told you, the same reason we have galaxies to begin with, gravity.
Thank you for making my point.

You misunderstand. The universe itself is expanding. The more distant galaxies are moving away faster than close ones but the rate of expansion is the same everywhere, about 71 kilometers per second, per Megaparsec or 7% every billion years.
According to science, the Big Bang happened around 13.75b years ago, right? The universe has been expanding ever since, right? The universe is not slowing it's expansion rate but is speeding up, right? The expansion rate is not at the speed of light, right? So is a train leaves the station and travels at 100 mph for 10 hours, how far does it go? 3000 miles?

Ridiculous and categorically untrue. They change as fast as the evidence comes and gets confirmed.
Untrue as I have already mentioned with the geocentric universe and flat earth theory.

The church agreeing with science is not the norm, most of the time they are at odds with science. The church has no power over science like it did in Galileo's time. I'm not sure what you are insinuating.
I think it is more common than you realize. The church's influences are still in the mind of the believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft

You talk about alternate theories, like what? Which scientific theories have been condemned because they weren't honest instead of getting rid of bad science or pseudoscience? It is not dangerous for scientists to challenge the status quo, we live for it. Proving other scientists wrong is what gets us ahead in our fields. You have no idea what you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-New-Cyclic-Anti-Big-Bang-Theory-45883.shtml
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

These links are just about the BB. When you get into companies like Monsanto, Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Kline, DuPont, et al... I think you will find a great deal of dishonesty and psuedo-science.
... and thank you for keeping the conversation on an intellectual level and not attacking me personally, it shows how mature you are.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
What about the scientist's employer or the benefactor who funds the research or the government that legislates what can be researched and what cannot or the scientist who has strong religious values influencing his thinking?
What about them? As I said, science has no power per se. You are talking about individuals now. You speak as if these are universal problems, they are not.

Thank you for making my point.
I made your point? You didn't seem to have a point. You asked a question. Space is expanding, according to our models, in spite of the fact that local gravitational effects will clump stars and galaxies.
According to science, the Big Bang happened around 13.75b years ago, right? The universe has been expanding ever since, right? The universe is not slowing it's expansion rate but is speeding up, right? The expansion rate is not at the speed of light, right? So is a train leaves the station and travels at 100 mph for 10 hours, how far does it go? 3000 miles?
I don't think you will understand the math so I will not go into it here but suffice it to say, you just don't understand. You are thinking three-dimensionally, you are thinking that our universe is spherical with a defined edge and center. These are incorrect.
Untrue as I have already mentioned with the geocentric universe and flat earth theory.
As I pointed out, conventional wisdom != scientific thought. Science did not come up with these ideas but was the common belief held by everyone, just like a child today thinks before he is taught the truth. Your example is a straw man.
I think it is more common than you realize. The church's influences are still in the mind of the believer.
Yet over 90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences consider themselves non-believers.
It appears his work was published. If there is anything that can be figured out using his work, I'm sure he will get full credit. Where is your evidence that his work is condemned and will be ignored and not investigated?
I see nothing here special. Has he published? If he can forumlate a testable hypothesis, then great. However, his claim that metaphysics needs to be incorporated into science would create problems.
I don't see any lack of support, however asking for funding for completely unidentified, possibly non-existent alternate theories is a little strange.
It appears this is an active area that is being researched. What's your problem?
I'm sorry but your links do not describe systematic condemnation of alternative theories. In fact, your links demonstrate that science is wide-open with fresh, new ideas to help explain some of the inherent problems with our current models.
I will give you another one, of someone that has dedicated his life to overturning the inflationary model. He is working on a variable speed of light hypothesis which would help explain the horizon problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_Magueijo
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0305457v3

Just because these alternative theories do not get the publicity does not mean they aren't out there right now working on these. Your indictment of science is unjust and incorrect. Scientists, including friends of mine working in cosmology, will be ecstatic if someone can come up with an alternative theory to the Big Bang that explains everything that it does plus explain all of the things that are problematic.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Just reading some of the comments about religion and "non-believers." Does personal belief influence investigation? It does influence personal investigation. But, science is not about that. It has to withstand as much objectivity as can be thrown at any idea. Of passing note, Cold Fusion claims were from Brigham Young University, I think. Did the "I BELEIEVE" mentality have something to do with that, at some level? Maybe.

To me religion is simply politics cloaked in bad science. To believe something in the absence of objective agreement and repeatable proof is a legacy from the Dark Ages. Let's not forget ruthlessness. And, of course, the Chruch didn't invent that play book. It's Tyranny 101.

So, while science struggles with tyranny of thought via Method, religion snuggles with it via fear.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
kinda late for the party but the big bang theory isn't really an 'observable' theory.....

it rises out of a bunch of complicated mathematical equations.... most of the 'telescopes' used to study this type of thing don't show images at all... it's a bunch of sine graphs n shit... lol
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
What was observed was Red Shift. Doppler Effect. Seems to work well in our galaxy, but Hubble was before, I think, before we knew about other galaxies. It still seemed to apply until the acelleration was discovered via another, shaky, IMO, Constant, the 1A SuperNova. But, perhaps it can provide a "standard candle." Maybe not, considering this next point.

To have a Hubble Constant, to even measure this "standard candle" one has to suppose a steady state spacetime of some ilk and use another Constant, the speed of light, which assumes a steady state light speed over billions of years. The Candle data suggests we don't have steady, we have piling on of velocity, like a rocket.

To make the math work, for new discovers concerning the energy budget of the Universe, new math was created to account for that. An Inflationary period was devised and now with Dark E&M a hyperInflation period could work in the math.

No one in the popular science parlance, to my knowledge, has a clue about or much less faces the implications of a non-steady Universe.
 
Top