Jump to content
Science Forums

Chauvinism In Science


xersan

Recommended Posts

CHAUVINISM IN SCIENCE (1)

 

The vacuum of existence is a big problem for us. We adopt some solutions for passing over it. Some of us may prefer to remain in twilight area. Enormousness of agnosticism tranquillizes them. They want to defend their paradigm; they try to keep it with uninterested arguments. They don’t worry for using respected reasons. We may call them chauvinists. Of course the chauvinists are not agreeable for science.

 

The transparent arguments are agreeable. Especially, the chance of agreement is high for technical discussing. Mathematical evidences are transparent. If you perceive it as an attack for your paradigm, you are a fanatic and chauvinist. It means; you defend your idol (subject of your psychic holding).

 

In the past Galileo had declared a contrary idea. Everybody had adopted without discussion what the sun turns around the earth. But Galileo had claimed that the earth turns around its own axis. If Galileo was a contributor in this forum, his posts had just sent to “Strange Claims Forum”. Of course he had explained his technical arguments. But it is a reality that human mind has blinkers; everybody cannot be a scientist.

 

At the beginning, Einstein had also meet with resistances for his revolutionary ideas.

 

The attitude of defending is often happened upon Astrology, UFO fantasies and unfortunately the theory of SR. All of them attend for our psychic compensation or tranquillizing necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAUVINISM IN SCIENCE (2)

 

I want to expose clear evidences against the theory of Special Relativity. But it is indeed very difficult passing over the prejudices.

 

In my opinion this theory is well-known with high interpretations of its conclusions instead of its essence. Theory has popularity. But everybody is not a scientist. We can not hope the understanding the procedures of the theory by them. They can prefer believing if they don’t perceive enough. They have a powerful argument for believing, because; the theory has the past as 100 years. And already the theory attends to mystic passion. They need an expression/certifıcation by another person about new idea.

 

Science spectators/audiences can follow curiously the developments. And they must be informed that there are some objections for the theory. But an editor must not be chauvinist.

 

Real scientists (even Einstein) have always a bit of suspicion (he had said about his suspicions to his friend), and they don’t just disclaim new ideas. Because, they know how the formulas derived. They want to analyze new ideas. They know the examples for big wrongs in history of science.

 

If we discuss in this forum, contributors have to analyze seriously than reply. If they approach by chauvinistic, it means they look for satisfaction themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Galileo's day 'religion repressed science', but today 'science has become repressive'.
Why should religions have "special rights" in science? Just because they are religions, any belief should be allowed in a science curriculum or its "repression?" I don't see scientists running picket lines in front of churches or synagogues or mosques!

 

This sort of victimology is *exactly* what the conservatives say is at the core of misguided "affirmative action" programs. Are you arguing for one for religions in science? Or more on xersan's line of thought, that wacko ideas that don't make sense should be given equal weight in the court of scientific opinion because they are "persecuted?" If they don't stand on their own, they probably *aren't true*! If they *are* true, they'll eventually overturn the current prevailing wisdom. That's how it goes.

 

But you're all asking to be shown to the front of the line? I don't see any justification for that, and as a conservative, I'd say you're doing yourself a disservice in the long run by asking for it!

 

Conservatively,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, science has become so intolerant, it won't (can't) perceive the Bible in any other light than what it has been portrayed, which is just putting Galileo under house arrest all over again.

 

Science has freed us from the shackle that is having the Bible, and in particular someone's interpretation of any particular part they deem appropriate, used to stop people from doing good things in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

but today 'science has become repressive'.

 

.

Today there is not slavery but co-dependent personality is present.

Today the colonialism is not preferred instead of economical suction/constriction

 

Today science has become repressive, but yet, neutral vision isn’t gotten well established in the scientific subjects.

 

There are chauvinists. They are evident for defending especially the theory of SR and Darwin's evaulation theory (*). The contributors must have neutral vision and cool approaching.

 

The persons who have new ideas must try to pass over chauvinists first of all.

 

I have a new paradigm for light kinematics. But it is contrary to the theory of SR; and the wrongs Of SR are become transparent and the problems of space-time can be solved by classical relativity due to new postulate. I want to share. Resistance and reaction are normally expected naturally. But it is inappropriateness superficial chauvinism instead of technical replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galileo was a 'brilliant' man and we see it clearly now. What forces acting in 'his' society would take an astute man and shackle his brilliance like that?
He was a brilliant man and it was seen clearly at the time. His cunning in argument amused the dinner parties everywhere he went and his opponents were usually the most stubborn peripatetics of the time, more than the clergy. It was the peripatetics that began turning some clergymen against him. Cardinal Bellarmino was the one that mainly caused him trouble.

 

Religion was 'the power' of the day and anyone who refuted those strictly held beliefs was considered a heretic. But Galileo was a prominent man and so 'house arrest' would suffice to cement the 'fear of the powers that be' into the minds of others who would question those same powers.
Galileo had been a great friend of the new pope, who had approved the dialogue for publication, until Bellarmino persuaded the pope that Galileo had tricked him in order to obtain this approval. Urban was furious because of this supposed betrayal of his friendship; if it hadn't been for many influent people being highly convinced of Galileo and his ideas he could have been in the dungeons like any heretic.

 

In defence of science, the reason for the repression is logical, if religion can't prove itself in a rational way, then why should we believe it?

 

And yet, science has become so intolerant, it won't (can't) perceive the Bible in any other light than what it has been portrayed, which is just putting Galileo under house arrest all over again.

Faith and philosophy are two totally different things. Many people are both religious and scientific, many others are neither. Only some people are intolerant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today there is not slavery but co-dependent personality is present.

Today the colonialism is not preferred instead of economical suction/constriction

 

Today science has become repressive, but yet, neutral vision isn’t gotten well established in the scientific subjects.

 

There are chauvinists. They are evident for defending especially the theory of SR and Darwin's evaulation theory (*). The contributors must have neutral vision and cool approaching.

 

The persons who have new ideas must try to pass over chauvinists first of all.

 

I have a new paradigm for light kinematics. But it is contrary to the theory of SR; and the wrongs Of SR are become transparent and the problems of space-time can be solved by classical relativity due to new postulate. I want to share. Resistance and reaction are normally expected naturally. But it is inappropriateness superficial chauvinism instead of technical replies.

 

ANTI-DARWINISM

 

(*) The partisans are chauvinists for the theory of SR, while anti-Darwinists are chauvinists. But both of the theories tranquillize their psychic problems and vacuum of existence.

 

Also hooligans are chauvinists.

 

There is necessity to grab hold of something strictly under chauvinism.

 

Anti-Darwinists believe genesis and they never want to hear a contrary thinking. It requires asking them: Hasn’t God the power for creating/designing the evaluation? Is it unavoidable the creating at a single moment (Instantly)? Powers of God suffice for everything. Already the symptoms of evaluation and points of process for evaluation are present. They had been also created by God.

 

The persons who have high paradigm pass over many concepts. But it remains “the necessity of holding” for the vacuum of existence. Some of them have sympathy due to this reason. And if the reason is not authentic, they may be chauvinist for their idol. If they can analyze the light’s events by only technical reasons, probably they will arrive/perceive pure realities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was, however, really making the point about how 'the powers-that-be' in any generation can really hinder the truth.
Just like the Orwellian Ministry of Truth. :) It's a political matter, not just scientific of course.

 

My point was that Galileo's opposers weren't primarily the clergy or another political authority. The peripatetics were philosophers like Galileo himself. It was mainly due to Galileo that the doctrine of Ptolemy, supported by Aristotle, became no longer the mainstream. That is quite the opposite of "Chauvinism In Science".

 

His trouble was that the most stubborn peripatetics, that by those days had taken the "ipse dixit" attitude which certainly wasn't Aristotle's own, resorted to the clerical authority to get back at him. This was favoured by some of them being clergy themselves (principally Bellarmino) and they leveraged a ruling of the Counsel of Trent which had only been to the purpose of bringing the different Christian churches less far apart.

 

They used this to criticize Galileo of arrogance for daring to say how the Holy Scriptures should and shouldn't be interpreted. Specifically, there had been discussion of Joshuah's words telling the Sun to "stop" and another sentence saying that, after setting, the Sun "hastens toward" the place it dawns in the morning. The pope did not really want to settle the matter of interpretation personally and ordered a commission to be formed to the purpose, and this commission was headed by Bellarmino.

 

And Galileo had 'friends in high places' - the poor man with no such friends would really be in a quandary.
Let's put the horse before the cart and not vice versa.

 

Those people in high places were his friends, and great friends, and they did much for him, because they were quite convinced of his ideas and very taken by them and the man's genius. It wasn't a case of them pleading lenience for a friend despite his ideas being contrary to their own mainstream views.

 

In short, I don't see Galileo's case being an example of chauvinism in science, nor of chauvinism between religion and science. It was a fortuitous circumstance for the stubbornest peripatetics who were no longer mainstream concerning the question of astronomical motions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...