/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15502713]

why are scientists so closed minded? its like everyone gets stuck in their dogma for a decade until someone dares to think outside the box for a moment and puts science on its ear

[Anonymous No.15502829]

I think you are talking about professors.

[Jealous No.15502841]

The scientific establishment has been hiring based on sycofancy instead of merit for so long, most of the current "top guys" are historically mediocre.

[Jealous No.15502844]

>>15502841
Sixty-Six Theses: Next Steps and the Way Forward in the Modified Cosmological Model

Authors: Jonathan W. Tooker

The purpose is to review and lay out a plan for future inquiry pertaining to the modified cosmological model (MCM) and its overarching research program. The material is modularized as a catalog of open questions that seem likely to support productive research work. The main focus is quantum theory but the material spans a breadth of physics and mathematics. Cosmology is heavily weighted and some Millennium Prize problems are included. A comprehensive introduction contains a survey of falsifiable MCM predictions and associated experimental results. Listed problems include original ideas deserving further study as well as investigations of others' work when it may be germane. A longstanding and important conceptual hurdle in the approach to MCM quantum gravity is resolved. A new elliptic curve application is presented. With several exceptions, the presentation is high-level and qualitative. Formal analyses are mostly relegated to the future work which is the topic of this book. Sufficient technical context is given that third parties might independently undertake the suggested work units.

[Jealous No.15502849]

>>15502844
http://gg762.net/d0cs/papers/Sixty-Six_Theses__v3-20230419.pdf
https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0152

[Anonymous No.15502850]

>>15502713
The real problem is theorists being able to effectively veto experimentalists.

[Anonymous No.15502915]

>>15502713
Maybe is because they need to suck off the current thing, agenda, corporations or gouvernement to get any money and funding?

[Jealous No.15502929]

>>15502915
That's exactly what suckophants are best at.

[Anonymous No.15502958]

>>15502713
Because scientists are humans and humans are irrational beings.

[Anonymous No.15502961]

>>15502958
are we sure dogs or mushrooms ain't?

[Anonymous No.15502977]

>>15502961
My experience is dogs are fairly irrational, likely due to human influence. No comment on the fungi.

[Anonymous No.15502980]

>>15502713
John, is that you

[Anonymous No.15502981]

>>15502713
Because of ethics. If there was less ethical restrictions on scientific research, there would be more breakthroughs

[Anonymous No.15503095]

>>15502713
Science marches forward one funeral at a time - just gotta wait out the old codgers and be an old codger yourself

[Anonymous No.15503143]

>>15502713
>why are scientists so closed minded?
cowardice

>its like everyone gets stuck in their dogma for a decade until someone dares to think outside the box for a moment and puts science on its ear
that doesn't happen except in a few cases where a profit can be made by changing the story that the peers all agree to stick to or if someone bribes enough of the peer to change their tune

[Anonymous No.15503177]

Remember that know it all sperg from school that got all his self worth from being correct and argued with the teacher? He became the science

[Anonymous No.15503512]

>>15503177
Martin Prince archetype

[Anonymous No.15503517]

>>15503143
>>15503177
This. Same reason why after 70 years of rock solid temperatures they still claim their hockey stick fraud was right.

[Anonymous No.15503787]

>>15502713
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMN62SjXqZE

[Anonymous No.15503862]

people tend to forget that, in a scientific context, you can't actually "prove" anything is true, and that the entire point is instead to demonstrate that your proposed idea is the most likely explanation by proving alternatives false.
instead it ends up boiling down to "well, past results suggest this, so it must be correct"

[Anonymous No.15504331]

>>15502713
The knowledge that the peer review system will crush their careers if they dare to step out of line

[Anonymous No.15504399]

>>15504331
This. If you make friends with your professor he'll tell you what he really believes.

[Anonymous No.15505292]

>>15503862
it would be that way in a perfect world, however in reality thats not how it works, the real goal is constructing nondisprovable conjectures like dark matter or evolution and then asserting their correctness by socially ostracizing all doubters

[Anonymous No.15505407]

>>15502713
There's that one Isaac Asimov short story where they make a machine that can view and display visuals and sounds of any point in time of the past from 150 years ago till the present, and the field of study is Chronography.

Essentially if you are a scientist as far as Uni/College mob is concerned, you may only do research in your field of study, and if you talk about other fields of study in a serious manner, other than just speculation or curiousity, you will be deemed an intellectual anarchist, and it's basically a crime.

License revocations, discrediting your research papers, heavy fines, suing.

[Anonymous No.15505443]

>researcher is gonna get career death if he career death other ass hats
Let the fight begin, what? You said you are tired already?

[Anonymous No.15505931]

>>15505407
>interdisciplinary research doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.15505935]

>>15505931
You have to get a co-author from the discipline to steal half the credit as your tax to the academic mafia.

[Anonymous No.15505953]

>>15502713
> why are scientists so closed minded?
They aren't. They are the opposite but that means they have opinions you don't like.

[Anonymous No.15506281]

>>15502713
Educating someone means narrowing their scope.

[Anonymous No.15506318]

>>15505953
50 years ago youd have your career ruined for suggesting there's planets outside of the solar system

[Jealous No.15506381]

>>15502713
>why are scientists so closed minded?
It's not that Scientologists are closed-minded, it's that they are evil and actively labor to suppress the forces for good in the world. When they get caught doing it, they say, "Oh sorry. It was an error due to closed-mindedness. Our bad."

[Anonymous No.15506486]

>>15502713
Openness personality. Humanities and broad interests overlap with a personality that is of divergent thinking. It accepts as many hypotheses as possible as true or plausible. However, this isn't how science operates. Science doesn't care about scope, it cares about veracity, accuracy, and exactness. As such it narrows down to as few hypotheses as possible and rejects the rest, which is actually a good thing, as that separates the wheat from the chaff. Humanities on the other hand don't separate the wheat from the chaff because they're disciplines fundamentally concerned with speculation, not exact truth per se. Soft sciences stay soft because to stop being soft they'd have to stop speculation, and humanities faculties are fundamentally institutes of speculation. And as such, the role is fulfilled and sciences reject speculation.

[Anonymous No.15506590]

>>15506486
>And as such, the role is fulfilled and sciences reject speculation.
Explain astrophysics, climate studies, and other speculative soience then.

[Anonymous No.15506603]

>>15506590
that's not speculation, that's kike propaganda of the university. speculation is never dogmatic. just look at peak of speculation - psychoanalysis and french philosophy. speculators never assert firm dogma, their most endearing and open stance is to the "yes and" improv of ideas, at least the part of them that aren't idiots or kikes. peak speculators engage in perpetual speculation upon speculation. speculators don't want dogma, they want wealth of speculation, and keep speculating and speculating in an interplay of ever increasing speculation. this is fundamentally in direct conflict with soience, though hard science as well. that's why philosophers never tell you anything exact or direct, they just ask you questions.

[Anonymous No.15506611]

>>15502713
thats how humans work
even enlightened humans are mostly only more aware that they are doing it. Doesnt stop them from doing it :^)

[Anonymous No.15507693]

>>15503177
>>15503512
they need to get their self worth that way because they have nothing else to rely on because they're too lazy to make themselves physically worthy

[Anonymous No.15507806]

>>15502915
>to get any money and funding
Is what gets to me. The advancement of science being gated behind research dollars just feels wrong, but I don't know how to articulate why.

[Anonymous No.15508056]

>>15507806
Capitalist got rid of nobles, and statesmen invided poor member so society into previously gatekeeped institutions so everything is about that. You can still do cheap mud tech, but if your science dream is splitting atoms them, or trying to feed a family of your own without being rich, you are going to need some funds.

[bodhi No.15508076]

>>15502713
>why are scientists so closed minded?
midwits, midwits destroy everything given enough time, every noble and pure thing is destroyed by them eventually

[Anonymous No.15508083]

>>15502713
Because they're scared of looking wrong and stupid

[Anonymous No.15508137]

Your body of work becomes such a strong part of your identity it's hard to let go.
Plank said that science advances one funeral at at a time.

[Anonymous No.15509113]

>>15508083
being dogmatic cowards who are afraid to admit a mistake makes them look stupid.

[Anonymous No.15509384]

>>15506318
no you fucking wouldn't
there are biases in science and establishment (by definition) is a thing, but if you don't go full shizo over something with nothing to back it up, then you will at most hit a dead end.
otoh, if you will have something, you will soon find yourself in a situation of having a bandwagon of people wanting to take credit

[Anonymous No.15509393]

>>15502713
It's widely known that science only has significant progress when the older gen dies of old age, and that's being optimistic because that assumes the new gen won't be even worse.

[Anonymous No.15509410]

>>15502713
>its like everyone gets stuck in their dogma for a decade until someone dares to think outside the box for a moment and puts science on its ear
you're making it sound like that's a bad thing to take things slow
the worst disasters in science were actually when people were too overenthusiastic about developments

[Anonymous No.15509412]

>>15509410
Like with mRNA gene therapy for example.

[Anonymous No.15510331]

>>15509412
no thats good. wiping out the people who were low iq enough to submit to the vaxxxx will be a great leap forward for humanity

[Anonymous No.15511128]

>>15510331
That was the plan all along

[Anonymous No.15512051]

>>15510331
That is a compelling but deeply unethical argument.

[Anonymous No.15512781]

>>15512051
Its OK because vaxxxxies are deeply unethical people, they're too low IQ to have any consistent ethics, so overall wiping them out is a net positive for ethics