Perfect Example Of Dogmatic Scientists Body Language Analysis

[art]

How to fail in Discovering what's true.

A Body Language Analysis Of Dogmatic Cern Scientists..

I don't know a lot about quantum physics, but just the basic mechanisms in proving pet theories and not willingness to be open minded in working with existential questions  shows how this will fail. "Empty your cup"

Edited August 3, 2017 by art
Better headline

[art]

She's really spot on here! Calling science a belief system being graduated in science herself.

[S33K3R]

The scientific community really is just a cult. Few people are in the honest pursuit of truth. Truth requires no ego, an indifference to the result. This in science is rare. Science is much like religion, ideas that are obviously true take decades to be considered. For example the electric universe theory or the fact that global warming is not man made but is actually mostly caused by the cycles of the sun. Standing out as different causes the herds of followers to attack. One because humans have a pecking order and being above others is pleasurable in the brain, and two because humans are inherently stupid and lack curiosity in the masses anyways. 

[Dragallur]

@art It seems like she simply came to these people with the idea that "CERN is evil and they are going to destroy the whole world". I completely understand why the lady in the end did not want to debate the guy. How are you going to explain in a short interview all of the physics involved? This is just another conspiracy theory, just because there are high energies does not mean anything, there are high energies in the other parts of Universe too and nothing actually serious happened. Because there is lot of energy does not equal the creation of black holes. This is just absurd. 

[art]

@Dragallur That's wasn't the point. If there is massive belief-systems that lies behind and influence important decisions on micro-macro level in how to do experiments and what to read out of it isn't a good way to discover what's true. That's just basic epistemological failure. Important difference in setting out to prove a pet-theory based on assumptions, even if they are default positions like "the beginning of the universe" and set a theory for research purpose, with no emotional attachments and radical open-mindedness and willingness to drop it anytime.

 

 

[Dragallur]

@art I see, but nobody claimed that they are searching for absolute truth, they are trying to find out how what we see around us works and scientific method works quite well for that.

Edit1:

The scientists will drop the theory if there is sufficient amount of evidence against it. So far it was only proven right and it might just be ridiculously hard to find out counter evidence, but as they mentioned.. there are things beyond standard model like dark matter but those are also new things that lack the decades of work. To prove or disprove the theory one needs huge collider. 

Also they are saying "the beginning of Universe" simply because we have a bit of an idea of how it might hace worked. Nobody even dares to say what was before Big Bang because it is just pointless.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Dragallur
Missed a lot