Menu directory status & updates copyrights help

Howell's "Dark Optimism"

Table of Contents


Introduction

Howell's "Dark Optimism" [might, might not] help to explain some of the things I [write, say], and why some of your [reaction, thought]s might not be relevant to me. That is especially the case on when people insist that one must believe THE TRUTH. (I'm talking about scientists here, not religion.)


Dark themes




Multiple Conflicting Hypothesis

always retain at least one alternative hypothesis, to avoid becoming :
  • Science proceeds fashion -> cult -> religion, which is NOT a bad thing of itself
  • [Mythology, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Socialism] resemble each other in strange ways, make similar claims about the truth of concepts in their domain, and in the end they produce somewhat similar [action, result, side-effect]s. Perhaps I am too influenced by my historical [reading, projects] suggesting outcomes were often "similar", in spite of major [differences, changes] in [politial, financial, business] styles. For example :
  • Science can be complete baloney, for a very, very, long time (at least 1,800 years). That fits with the [nature, longevity] of [myth, religion, philosophy, etc], and possibly all societal [behaviour, action].
  • If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a good question is worth a thousand answers.
  • "General Relativity (GR) is a turkey. Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a fool's paradise." (Howell ?2011?)
    - maybe [right, wrong, true, false], maybe [worse, better] than alternative [concept, theory]s. But this is normal, and who cares?
    In any case, "all theories are wrong, but some are useful" (?George Fox, American geologist ca1950s?, but probably used soon after man develped human language?)
    Quantum Mechanics (QM) has been hugely useful!! That makes it hard for other ideas. Quite possibly, the "rebels" are far less wrong than the "current dominant religion"? <>
    topic Current dominant religion rebels
    structure of [nucleus, outer electrons, atom] Quantum Mechanics ~1927-1933? [Neils Bohr, Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli] (QM) Edo Kall ~2008 "Structured Atom Model" (SAM)
    Bill Lucas ?2010? "Universal Force" (UF)
    Randal Mills "?"
    Roger Boscovich 1758 single law of forces, atomic theory
    ancient Greeks (I forget names) atomic theory
    thousands more ...
    frame of references, light Albert Einstein's [1905 Special, 1919? General] Relativity (GR) Relativity Theory of [Konrad Lorenz, Poirier] ~1902? (RT)
    Galileo frame of reference ?~1600?
    Steven Bryant 2016 "Disruptive : rewriting the rules of physics"
    • shows simple errors in [Michaelson, Morely] calculations (MM) that essentially all scientists have missed for almost 150 years, and which persists today
    • shows what MM results should have been
    • shows why GR results work pragmatically well, even though horrible conceptually
    • discusses implications of entrenched failed thinking anchored on (GR)
    • opportunities for the furute with a radical change (back) in thinking?
  • Max Plank quote is funny (wikipedia read 09Jan2024). I've often heard similar quotes, in many topic areas, credited to many different people. Usually it is used by scientists who long have experienced the reactions of mainstream scientists to [their own, others'] ideas. But not always do I hear it in the context that "it came back to bite you", when a once-rebellious scientist now finds himself as one of the guardians against sac-religious new ideas :
    "... Here Planck experienced the truth of his own earlier observation from his struggle with the older views during his younger years: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ..."