Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 11/11/2014 08:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes he was quite cutting edge for his day. There was a scientist on the
radio only the other day saying that if you went against the trend in
most
sciences, it was far harder to get your papers published due to what he
termed, orthodoxy bias.

This is the classic case; a theory that was roundly rejected by the
establishment, but ended up getting Nobel prizes for the chaps who
persevered despite all the naysayers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304290.stm


Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

Bill

On Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:31:36 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 11/11/2014 08:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes he was quite cutting edge for his day. There was a scientist on the
radio only the other day saying that if you went against the trend in
most
sciences, it was far harder to get your papers published due to what he
termed, orthodoxy bias.

This is the classic case; a theory that was roundly rejected by the
establishment, but ended up getting Nobel prizes for the chaps who
persevered despite all the naysayers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304290.stm


Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

Just shows that some of their teaching isn't up to standard, working at a university it doesn't suprise me at all. Don't forget he was a teacher not a scientist.

On 11/11/2014 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:

snipped

Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well.

They mocked when I pointed out that Anglesey had clearly been forced
out of The Wash by a similar mechanism and 'tiddlywinked' into the Irish
Sea.

They're not laughing now. Oh no.

Cheers
--
Syd

On 11/11/2014 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:

Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

That's odd. I did Geology and Geophysics with the OU starting in 1972,
its second year, and plate tectonics was being pushed hard hard as *the*
theory.

--
F

F wrote:
On 11/11/2014 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:

Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

That's odd. I did Geology and Geophysics with the OU starting in 1972,
its second year, and plate tectonics was being pushed hard hard as *the*
theory.


Yes, as I said, it was the new orthodoxy. It was in all the books and
the TV programmes. But this particular guy didn't believe in it. My
student number started with a B. What year would that be?

Bill

On Tuesday, 11 November 2014 19:22:52 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
F wrote:
On 11/11/2014 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:

Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

That's odd. I did Geology and Geophysics with the OU starting in 1972,
its second year, and plate tectonics was being pushed hard hard as *the*
theory.


Yes, as I said, it was the new orthodoxy. It was in all the books and
the TV programmes. But this particular guy didn't believe in it
. My
student number started with a B. What year would that be?

I dunno it's in usually written B.C or if you're refering to the 'new' system it's B.C.E. ;-)

whisky-dave wrote:


I dunno it's in usually written B.C or if you're refering to the 'new' system it's B.C.E. ;-)



Oi!

Bill

On 11/11/2014 19:22, Bill Wright wrote:
F wrote:
On 11/11/2014 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:

Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

That's odd. I did Geology and Geophysics with the OU starting in 1972,
its second year, and plate tectonics was being pushed hard hard as
*the* theory.


Yes, as I said, it was the new orthodoxy. It was in all the books and
the TV programmes. But this particular guy didn't believe in it. My
student number started with a B. What year would that be?

1972, same as mine. We must have had different lecturers as mine was a
convert to the 'new# ideas.

--
F

F wrote:
On 11/11/2014 19:22, Bill Wright wrote:
F wrote:
On 11/11/2014 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:

Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in
the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach
plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

That's odd. I did Geology and Geophysics with the OU starting in 1972,
its second year, and plate tectonics was being pushed hard hard as
*the* theory.


Yes, as I said, it was the new orthodoxy. It was in all the books and
the TV programmes. But this particular guy didn't believe in it. My
student number started with a B. What year would that be?

1972, same as mine. We must have had different lecturers as mine was a
convert to the 'new# ideas.

This was at Durham and he was rather old. Don't remember his name but
another guy there was Mike Pentz, quite a famous guy. He was the
director of studies. I bought him a Newcastle Brown, his first.

Bill

On 13/11/2014 14:09, Bill Wright wrote:
F wrote:
On 11/11/2014 19:22, Bill Wright wrote:
F wrote:
On 11/11/2014 16:31, Bill Wright wrote:

Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible
in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would
fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach
plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

That's odd. I did Geology and Geophysics with the OU starting in 1972,
its second year, and plate tectonics was being pushed hard hard as
*the* theory.


Yes, as I said, it was the new orthodoxy. It was in all the books and
the TV programmes. But this particular guy didn't believe in it. My
student number started with a B. What year would that be?

1972, same as mine. We must have had different lecturers as mine was a
convert to the 'new' ideas.

This was at Durham and he was rather old. Don't remember his name but
another guy there was Mike Pentz, quite a famous guy. He was the
director of studies. I bought him a Newcastle Brown, his first.

Never met Mike Pentz, but I remember him from the various TV programmes
he did for some of the modules I studied.

I did one summer school at Durham and one at Leeds. The evenings at
Durham have mostly failed to survive in the memory. Probably something
to do with the Newkie Brown and Fed in the students' bar...

--
F

On Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:31:36 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 11/11/2014 08:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes he was quite cutting edge for his day. There was a scientist on the
radio only the other day saying that if you went against the trend in
most
sciences, it was far harder to get your papers published due to what he
termed, orthodoxy bias.

This is the classic case; a theory that was roundly rejected by the
establishment, but ended up getting Nobel prizes for the chaps who
persevered despite all the naysayers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304290.stm


Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit
together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham
and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach plate
tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."

Bill

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

See Thomas Kuhn, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolution'. The old heresies become the new orthodoxy. Usually, this is called Scientific Progress (no quote marks). It's what gets you your shiny new tablets, smartphones, high-mpg cars, cordless tools, etc. etc. as well as predictions about climate change.

J^n

jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.

Bill

On 12/11/14 02:16, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.

I am afraid that if you study metaphysics, the a priori **** that comes
BEFORE science is, in essence, consensus.

We agree the world exists, we agree its made of stuff, we agree the time
and distance are measures of it, we agree that 'things' 'happen' because
'something' 'causes' them *.

Consensus is not the problem. Its consensus that disagrees with the
evidence that consensus already provides, that is the issue.

AGW is like agreeing that one and one and one is three, but then
declaring that three and three make seven.

I am reminded of the early mathematicians that the ratio of a circle's
diameter to its circumference was really 3...despite the fact it
patently wasn't.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/..._the_ages.html

* And that is defining a 'clockwork' or 'God made' Universe before we
even start, right there.
Bill


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

AGW is like agreeing that one and one and one is three, but then
declaring that three and three make seven.

Ah, well, that's where you lose me. I never could do sums.

Bill

On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:17:09 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.


sigh ... it becomes the orthodoxy as a view (prediction/theory/model) gains
consensus as the best explainer of the evidence.

You could indeed have 'instead', a sort of 'supermarket of theories', each with
their own explanations, predictions, and approaches. And then you'd have a
darwinian survival of the fittest, between the various views.

And ... this is indeed what we have. The current consensus is arrived at through
a process of selection between alternatives.

Asserting that this happens totally according to the evidence
would be silly - of course there are other selectional pressures. But the world
is complex ... and just because your pet theory is mostly lying mouldering on
the bottom shelf, loved and bought into by only a few, is not to cry foul on
the current evidential leader or the processes that made it so.

J^n

jkn wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:17:09 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.
But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.


sigh ...

I don't read posts that begin in such a patronising way. Or, as they say
round here, "Don't you ****ing sigh at me pal!"

Bill

On 12/11/2014 02:16, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.

Bill

There is a strong scientific consensus about what is known so far.

Anyone who denies Newtons laws or Einsteins Relativity these days can
safely be dismissed as a crank with near certainty. Everything taught in
the hard sciences up to third year undergraduate level is pretty much
tested to the point where it is rare to find significant changes.

Scientists do make mistakes like the guy who famously predicted that
"(classical) physics would be solved in twenty years time" a mere two
years before the first quantum effects were observed.

The point about the scientific consensus is that it can always be
overthrown and rewritten by experimental demonstration that the existing
orthodoxy is incorrect. It only takes one counterexample!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 12/11/2014 08:44, Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/11/2014 02:16, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.

Bill

There is a strong scientific consensus about what is known so far.

Anyone who denies Newtons laws or Einsteins Relativity these days can
safely be dismissed as a crank with near certainty. Everything taught in
the hard sciences up to third year undergraduate level is pretty much
tested to the point where it is rare to find significant changes.

Scientists do make mistakes like the guy who famously predicted that
"(classical) physics would be solved in twenty years time" a mere two
years before the first quantum effects were observed.

Its not a mistake, its trusting in the limits of what we can observe.
Now that is a mistake lots of people, including scientists, make.
When we go looking and develop different/better ways to observe we often
change the established theories. That is what science is about.

Its not science to find different things/ways to observe and then bend
the results to fit in with current theories like some climate change
groups appear to do.

The point about the scientific consensus is that it can always be
overthrown and rewritten by experimental demonstration that the existing
orthodoxy is incorrect. It only takes one counterexample!


Like having models that can't predict 10 years into the future but still
claiming they are accurate?

On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 12:06:10 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 12/11/2014 08:44, Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/11/2014 02:16, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.

Bill

There is a strong scientific consensus about what is known so far.

Anyone who denies Newtons laws or Einsteins Relativity these days can
safely be dismissed as a crank with near certainty. Everything taught in
the hard sciences up to third year undergraduate level is pretty much
tested to the point where it is rare to find significant changes.

Scientists do make mistakes like the guy who famously predicted that
"(classical) physics would be solved in twenty years time" a mere two
years before the first quantum effects were observed.

Its not a mistake, its trusting in the limits of what we can observe.
Now that is a mistake lots of people, including scientists, make.
When we go looking and develop different/better ways to observe we often
change the established theories. That is what science is about.

Its not science to find different things/ways to observe and then bend
the results to fit in with current theories like some climate change
groups appear to do.

The point about the scientific consensus is that it can always be
overthrown and rewritten by experimental demonstration that the existing
orthodoxy is incorrect. It only takes one counterexample!


Like having models that can't predict 10 years into the future but still
claiming they are accurate?

Such as LED life expectancies amonst others.

In message . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 12/11/2014 08:44, Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/11/2014 02:16, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.

Bill

There is a strong scientific consensus about what is known so far.

Anyone who denies Newtons laws or Einsteins Relativity these days can
safely be dismissed as a crank with near certainty. Everything taught in
the hard sciences up to third year undergraduate level is pretty much
tested to the point where it is rare to find significant changes.

Scientists do make mistakes like the guy who famously predicted that
"(classical) physics would be solved in twenty years time" a mere two
years before the first quantum effects were observed.

Its not a mistake, its trusting in the limits of what we can observe.
Now that is a mistake lots of people, including scientists, make.
When we go looking and develop different/better ways to observe we
often change the established theories. That is what science is about.

Its not science to find different things/ways to observe and then bend
the results to fit in with current theories like some climate change
groups appear to do.

The point about the scientific consensus is that it can always be
overthrown and rewritten by experimental demonstration that the existing
orthodoxy is incorrect. It only takes one counterexample!


Like having models that can't predict 10 years into the future but
still claiming they are accurate?

So they now predict 100 years into the future - and then can not be
proven wrong.
--
bert

Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/11/2014 02:16, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.

Bill

There is a strong scientific consensus about what is known so far.

There jolly well is not! The actual global temperatures have not risen
for 17 years, yet CO2 has continued to increase. So the science that
predicted temperature rises has been shown to be wrong.

Bill

On 13/11/2014 14:18, Bill Wright wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/11/2014 02:16, Bill Wright wrote:
jkn wrote:

So, the orthodoxy changes. Usually, due to evidence.

But there shouldn't be an orthodoxy. Science isn't done by consensus.

Bill

There is a strong scientific consensus about what is known so far.

There jolly well is not! The actual global temperatures have not risen
for 17 years, yet CO2 has continued to increase. So the science that
predicted temperature rises has been shown to be wrong.

Bill

If you are so certain your statement is true how about sharing with us
the data on which it is based.

--
Roger Chapman