DailyDirt: Crackpots Versus Real Scientists

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Over a hundred years ago, Albert Einstein published what would become his theory of special relativity, and since then, there have been quite a few experiments that support Einstein's ideas. That's the way science usually works. A theory hypothesis is proposed, and if it's deemed worthy enough, other people will actually try to test out the theory hypothesis and see if its predictions can be verified (and every worthy theory hypothesis needs to be able to predict something that isn't already known). As non-traditional scientific publishing becomes easier and more popular, though, the signal-to-noise for interesting ideas can get a bit difficult to discern. Luckily, there are still some folks willing to bear the burden of debunking extraordinary claims from an endless stream of nearly-good ideas. If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: abc conjecture, crowdsourcing, e8, grand unifying theory, gut, math, p=np, proof, science


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:16pm

    Theory and hypothises

    Mr Ho, please oh please, learn some things, learn what a theory is, what a hypotheses is and what a 'law' is. Otherwise you make yourself look really STUPID and ignorant.

    Albert Einstein published what would become his theory of special relativity,

    what bullshit is that, "would become" ??? Albert Einstein published THE THEORY OF SPECIAL AND GENERAL Relativity, it did not "become" that some time after he published it.

    and since then, there have been quite a few experiments that support Einstein's ideas.

    No, it is generally observed and common physics and common daily events that continuously support the published theory (now considered a law) that support the published theory of relativity, not Einstein's idea's.

    The scientific process is an adversarial process, someone proposes a theory and all the other scientists do their best to 'debunk' it. That is how the system works and how progress is made.

    It's not a 'bad thing' as you make out, but an essential aspect of scientific endeavour.

    in science you make a hypothises, develop that into a theory, then everyone tries to 'debunk' or confirm that into a theory, the theory is tested and if it withstands testing and is proved to be valid is becomes a law.

    The law of relativity is proven daily, and proven by the requirement to adjust the clocks on GPS satellites due to their relativistic motion and lower gravity, so it would be consider a law of science, not a hypothises or 'theory', just as Ohm's LAW is a law of physics because it's always obeyed.

    Just as the theory of quantum mechanics is a law, and is the only reason why electronics works and plants grow.

    Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics, yet it has been proved time and again to be a valid and usable theory/law.

    Wave/particle theory is consider a law of physics, you are able to make predictions with these laws and have not been proven wrong in any situation.

    Try to familiarise yourself with 'the scientific method' and what these terminologies actually mean in a scientific context before you start to cross out words like "theory" and replace it with 'hypotheses' because you do yourself no favour is doing that, in fact I would propose a hypothesis that someone who would do this has a law IQ.

    IF you cannot disprove that, then is might become a theory, and if that theory hold water and is shown able to be used to make valid and real predictions it might even become a law.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.