Re: Relativistic aberration

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 :-)