Jump to content
Science Forums

What does "against the mainstream" mean?


malform11

Recommended Posts

Every generation has had those who believed (erroneously) that science has all the answers. Our generation is no exception.

Lord Kelvin stated that there was no further need for research, that science had all the answers. This was before man split the atom.

Many will admit that there are more questions than answers.

Big bangers theorize about a universe beginning and a death but have no understanding of the universe now. They have no idea how galaxies form and evolve. They don't understand nebulae or quasars. There are three known substances, matter, antimatter, dark matter, but mainstream science mistakenly predicted that antimatter didn't, couldn't exist. They predicted that space contained only matter and was otherwise empty. In other words they also mistakenly predicted that dark matter didn't exist.

We should not believe that the prevailing science community has all the correct answers to the point that we aren't open to new possible explanations. The existing theories have failed in almost every prediction.

Yet we do not throw out everything we know about science.

Alternative theorists (millions of them) throw away many things we know about the universe and try to rewrite how everything works. A unification theorist hopefully takes all we know, throws away unproved theory, and puts the puzzle pieces in the correct order.

Asking prudent questions and unifying proven ideas (without trying to see it through some unproved metatheory) to get a more complete picture of how our universe works is not "against the mainstream."

Pseudoscience is against the mainstream!

When you go to forums and you don't just believe big bang, repeat all the mythos about it, claim intellectual authority then you are supposedly wrong by admission. The forum they send you to "against the mainstream" is described as "ideas that have been long disproved and don't fit any science..."

It is debatable if someone calls me against the mainstream. It is ridiculous and telling that it is "against the mainstream" when I post no comments but merely submit an image from Hubble or Integral, quote NASA and possibly Faraday, quote some established science fact cut and pasted from WIKI.

The mainstream is not proven science, new experiments, better observations, the foundation of knowledge that took hundreds of years. The mainstream is BIG BANG CONCLUSIONS, which are of course proven because in our generation they know everything there is to know about the universe. 

"Against the mainstream" is just a label, like a dunce cap, that declares you are wrong no matter what you say. I refuse to be considered wrong without consideration or evidence, so I don't post science explanations in "against the mainstream" forums. They won't let my true statement exist outside of purgatory.

 

 

Edited by malform11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2023 at 1:09 PM, malform11 said:

Every generation has had those who believed (erroneously) that science has all the answers. Our generation is no exception.

Lord Kelvin stated that there was no further need for research, that science had all the answers. This was before man split the atom.

Many will admit that there are more questions than answers.

Big bangers theorize about a universe beginning and a death but have no understanding of the universe now. They have no idea how galaxies form and evolve. They don't understand nebulae or quasars. There are three known substances, matter, antimatter, dark matter, but mainstream science mistakenly predicted that antimatter didn't, couldn't exist. They predicted that space contained only matter and was otherwise empty. In other words they also mistakenly predicted that dark matter didn't exist.

We should not believe that the prevailing science community has all the correct answers to the point that we aren't open to new possible explanations. The existing theories have failed in almost every prediction.

Yet we do not throw out everything we know about science.

Alternative theorists (millions of them) throw away many things we know about the universe and try to rewrite how everything works. A unification theorist hopefully takes all we know, throws away unproved theory, and puts the puzzle pieces in the correct order.

Asking prudent questions and unifying proven ideas (without trying to see it through some unproved metatheory) to get a more complete picture of how our universe works is not "against the mainstream."

Pseudoscience is against the mainstream!

When you go to forums and you don't just believe big bang, repeat all the mythos about it, claim intellectual authority then you are supposedly wrong by admission. The forum they send you to "against the mainstream" is described as "ideas that have been long disproved and don't fit any science..."

It is debatable if someone calls me against the mainstream. It is ridiculous and telling that it is "against the mainstream" when I post no comments but merely submit an image from Hubble or Integral, quote NASA and possibly Faraday, quote some established science fact cut and pasted from WIKI.

The mainstream is not proven science, new experiments, better observations, the foundation of knowledge that took hundreds of years. The mainstream is BIG BANG CONCLUSIONS, which are of course proven because in our generation they know everything there is to know about the universe. 

"Against the mainstream" is just a label, like a dunce cap, that declares you are wrong no matter what you say. I refuse to be considered wrong without consideration or evidence, so I don't post science explanations in "against the mainstream" forums. They won't let my true statement exist outside of purgatory.

 

 

This forum does allow for alternative theories that do not fit into mainstream science because we do recognize that science is constantly evolving.

Some of these alternative theories are quite well presented and thoughtful and may be good for debate.

What we generally do not approve of is wild, unsubstantiated claims. But, even these are sometimes allowed and placed in the Strange Claims section if they are at least interesting.

When the claims become ridiculous, they go to Silly Claims where they are rightfully ridiculed. One of our unpublished rules is: Every member has the right to make a fool of himself, and every other member has the right to ridicule, as long as the ridicule is directed at the claim, and not ad hom directed at the claimant.

The very worst claims, which have no intellectual or amusement value at all, are usually deleted.

IOW, you will get fair treatment if you post outside of the mainstream as long as what you post isn't total bollocks.

 

Edited by OceanBreeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
On 2/20/2023 at 1:09 PM, malform11 said:

Every generation has had those who believed (erroneously) that science has all the answers. Our generation is no exception.

Lord Kelvin stated that there was no further need for research, that science had all the answers. This was before man split the atom.

Many will admit that there are more questions than answers.

Big bangers theorize about a universe beginning and a death but have no understanding of the universe now. They have no idea how galaxies form and evolve. They don't understand nebulae or quasars. There are three known substances, matter, antimatter, dark matter, but mainstream science mistakenly predicted that antimatter didn't, couldn't exist. They predicted that space contained only matter and was otherwise empty. In other words they also mistakenly predicted that dark matter didn't exist.

We should not believe that the prevailing science community has all the correct answers to the point that we aren't open to new possible explanations. The existing theories have failed in almost every prediction.

Yet we do not throw out everything we know about science.

Alternative theorists (millions of them) throw away many things we know about the universe and try to rewrite how everything works. A unification theorist hopefully takes all we know, throws away unproved theory, and puts the puzzle pieces in the correct order.

Asking prudent questions and unifying proven ideas (without trying to see it through some unproved metatheory) to get a more complete picture of how our universe works is not "against the mainstream."

Pseudoscience is against the mainstream!

When you go to forums and you don't just believe big bang, repeat all the mythos about it, claim intellectual authority then you are supposedly wrong by admission. The forum they send you to "against the mainstream" is described as "ideas that have been long disproved and don't fit any science..."

It is debatable if someone calls me against the mainstream. It is ridiculous and telling that it is "against the mainstream" when I post no comments but merely submit an image from Hubble or Integral, quote NASA and possibly Faraday, quote some established science fact cut and pasted from WIKI.

The mainstream is not proven science, new experiments, better observations, the foundation of knowledge that took hundreds of years. The mainstream is BIG BANG CONCLUSIONS, which are of course proven because in our generation they know everything there is to know about the universe. 

"Against the mainstream" is just a label, like a dunce cap, that declares you are wrong no matter what you say. I refuse to be considered wrong without consideration or evidence, so I don't post science explanations in "against the mainstream" forums. They won't let my true statement exist outside of purgatory.

 

slope game

One of the uncodified regulations inside our organization stipulates that each member possesses the entitlement to engage in behavior that may be perceived as foolish, while simultaneously granting other members the prerogative to engage in derision, provided that such ridicule is directed towards the assertion being made rather than targeting the individual making the assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2023 at 2:44 PM, rabic said:

One of the uncodified regulations inside our organization stipulates that each member possesses the entitlement to engage in behavior that may be perceived as foolish, while simultaneously granting other members the prerogative to engage in derision, provided that such ridicule is directed towards the assertion being made rather than targeting the individual making the assertion.

This is what I wrote in my reply to malform11, above: " One of our unpublished rules is: Every member has the right to make a fool of himself, and every other member has the right to ridicule, as long as the ridicule is directed at the claim, and not ad hom directed at the claimant."

I think the way you restated it is an improvement: "One of the uncodified regulations inside our organization stipulates that each member possesses the entitlement to engage in behavior that may be perceived as foolish, while simultaneously granting other members the prerogative to engage in derision, provided that such ridicule is directed towards the assertion being made rather than targeting the individual making the assertion."

I would appreciate knowing what software you used for the rewrite; I might want to use it myself to improve how my posts are written. Thanks!

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...