Suric: it takes arrogance, lameness, utter self love and desperate need to be in the limelight, to come up with an idea which allows one to erase, in one stroke, anyone's attempt to question and correct.
These are the types of responses when opponents don't have any actual facts to back them up.
Let's examine the commenter's statement piece by piece...
it takes arrogance, lameness...
Who is more arrogant, those who actually plan, build and operate these missions, or those who claim they can who have not demonstrated that they can do even the basics (like calculate spacecraft trajectories, compute particle fluxes) and going so far as to claim that those who CAN do these things are 'faking the data', 'lying to protect the status-quo model', etc.?
Challenging on this leads to evasion or silence...
...utter self love and desperate need to be in the limelight...
I'm not a research-grade scientist.
However, thanks to a rather broad training in physics that I obtained as an undergraduate and graduate student, I am a sufficiently good generalist that I can do support work with sufficient accuracy and reliability to aid those who actually do research. I'm quite happy with that.
I've been criticized, told I was wasting my time, by professional scientists, for being willing to deal with the cranks and crackpots. Though there are others who've actually thanked me for addressing some of the problems created by the cranks.
If I'm doing this to get attention for me, I'm clearly doing something wrong.
Meanwhile, many pseudo-scientists attempt to harass professional scientists (the more prominent the better) in an attempt to raise their profile. Since the pseudo-scientists can't meet the standards of REAL science, this is probably their only actual accomplishments.
...to come up with an idea which allows one to erase, in one stroke, anyone's attempt to question and correct.
What most cranks, pseudo-scientists, and their supporters fail to address, is the faults in their claimed 'corrections' to the 'status-quo' model. I've yet to find one of these 'corrections' that has less severe problems than the mainstream problem they claim to correct.
Consider the Standard Solar Model. That model, as it exists today, has been developed over the past 100+ years with contributions from hundreds of individuals. While there are a few stand-out names among the contributors: Cecilia Payne, Henry Norris Russell, Hans Bethe, etc., most of their names are lost to all but those who work actively in the field.
Among pseudo-scientists, there are as many theories as there are ego-maniacs.
As I have noted before, there are, at minimum, FOUR separate, and outright contradictory Electric Sun models pushed under the "Electric Universe" banner by as many individuals, as well as loads of others lesser known. You see similar behavior in young-earth creationists, where different 'centers', ICR, CMI, AiG, etc. may utilize the same 'problems' in mainstream science, but often advocate different solutions to the problems, usually oriented around the products which they wish to sell to believers.
The proponents of each of these models are all hoping their model will 'win', but we have yet to determine:
What is the standard for 'winning'?
While each of these EU or creationist 'researchers' has their own fan club, how many other individuals are actively involved in research on any of these models, as opposed to pushing another radical variant of their own?
But the really funny part which Electric Universe supporters is even with just these four 'Electric Sun' models are so radically different from each other that the proponent of any one of them is calling all the others nonsense.
EU supporters claim these alternatives can explain such solar mysteries as:
- the solar neutrino deficit (or maybe not)
- the multi-million degree 'temperature' of the chromosphere and corona
- the acceleration of the solar wind (actually more related to the corona temperature)
Yet not only have EU 'theorists' not provided details of these theories with numerical predictions of these claimed 'successes', we have yet to see how any of these models can provide predictions of the particle environment around the Sun where we routinely fly spacecraft.
Attempts by others to answer these questions not only demonstrates that the model fails. Presentations of these facts are usually met with bizarre excuses:
- "You did the computation wrong." Okay, so demonstrate the 'correct' calculation...
- "It is up to mainstream science to prove our theory." So it appears EU 'theorists' want mainstream scientists to do the actual hard work while EU theorists hang around to take the credit?
- "The EU model isn't sufficiently worked out yet." If your theory is insufficiently worked out that it cannot provide numerical predictions which can be compared to measurements, then such a theory is, at best, not a serious contender. At worst, it is scientific fraud. (see Electric Universe: More Confusing Claims from the EU 'Worldview')
Talk about self-delusion!
Yet while Electric Sun advocates claim these 'corrections' to the Standard Solar Model explain many problems with the model, we have yet to obtain any useful quantitative predictions from these models which we can compare to actual experiments and observations. And many of these failures of these 'corrections' are things which the Standard Model does well (see also Challenges for Electric Universe Theorists).
Pseudo-science 'models' claim to explain everything, yet can predict nothing except in the most ambiguous fashion, more like the predictions of a tabloid psychic than real scientists.
And if they continue to be confronted with too many challenges which they can't answer, the pseudo-scientists will occasionally resort to claiming some technology was 'faked' (Apollo Moon landings, relativity in the GPS system, space flight in general), to extract themselves from the from the corner into which they've backed themselves. Then they have to hope none of their fans and supporters get wise to their retreat, but that's usually not that difficult...
“They are not mad. They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous.” -- Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah
The Real Ego-Centric UniverseI'm reminded of the great quote from Schadewald's "Worlds of their Own":
"While orthodox science has had its share of egomaniacs, unorthodox science attracts even more."EU has never even demonstrated that they understand enough about celestial mechanics to model an interplanetary trajectory as it is developed by the professionals, much less demonstrated that they can model a similar trajectory in a solar system awash in regions of significant charge which they claim exists. Yet they still claim they are the geniuses and insinuate the people who actually do this stuff are everything from incompetents or liars.
Nature is under no obligation to conform to our expectations...
In legitimate science, we conduct experiments and work to make sure they have results that are reproducible, and predictable. This practice has made possible technologies that were not possible one hundred, or three hundred years ago. It is because we now understand, in reproducible mathematical detail, behaviors of atoms and electrons at the atomic scale (making possible the computer on which you are reading this) to the motions of objects in distant space (making possible space missions to the outer reaches of our solar system). Sometimes this means there are some problems to which real science does not have an immediate answer, which are an ongoing area of research. Sometimes the answer to the problem requires a revision to what we previously thought we understood well, but there are rigorous procedures for making that determination.
On the other hand, pseudo-science is based on the idea that the Universe must conform to the expectations and/or 'worldview' (i.e. political and/or religious ideologies) of its advocates (see Pseudoscience and 'World-View'). In this model, pseudo-scientists claim they can 'explain' any problem which exists in mainstream science, often at the expense of ignoring well-established science. Considering how many different (and competing) 'worldviews' have adopted some form of pseudo-science, or adopted some fact of established science to attack, statistically, what are the odds for ANY of them being correct?!
Which system requires more arrogance?