tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post5669383792262772836..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Big Bangs & Black Holes - What's in a Name?W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-34233285316640954362014-10-09T18:39:24.601-04:002014-10-09T18:39:24.601-04:00To Anonymous,
Well, science is not neutral, indep...To Anonymous,<br /><br />Well, science is not neutral, independent, or even agnostic. It works whether you believe it or not. Science does not choose sides - but sides can choose science - or choose to ignore it, often putting them at a disadvantage to those who do not ignore it.<br /><br />Science is not an 'idea' that comes and goes like a fashion (as <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/10/reading-worlds-of-their-own-by-robert.html" rel="nofollow">Bob Schadewald described</a>). We may gain deeper understandings of physical laws with time, but often the older ideas stay acceptable in their domain of applicability - Galilean gravity for building buildings, Newtonian gravity for launching satellites, and Einsteinian gravity for higher precision problems.<br /><br />While there are problems that are still subject to debate, there is also a large body of well-established science. The cranks often ignore this and attack well-established science - mechanics, electromagnetism, relativity.<br /><br />Those whom I actually label as 'cranks' have already fallen far short of the standards of the scientific method and have moved their arrogant ignorance into the realm where, if they had the opportunity to control the technology, they would do real damage. Those whom I label as cranks:<br /><br />- Have yet to provide an actual demonstration that their claims work better. I have documented many of these failures on this site.<br />- Actively harass those who have *real* accomplishments in space research (and if you want to see abuse, you should read some of the rants the cranks have made at scientists who've designed, built, launched and operated real space missions and done real data analysis). My site is tame compared to those cranks.<br />- Ignored or dismissed the implications of their claims for the safety of satellites and astronauts and other technologies (see Death by Electric Universe, geocentrists, relativity deniers). <br /><br />Most of the cranks I've dealt with have certainly demonstrated the capability, but so far just lacked the opportunity to do real damage that others have accomplished peddling their pseudo-science (<a href="http://www.whatstheharm.net/" rel="nofollow">WhatsTheHarm?</a>).W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-18447218885018593482014-09-30T11:10:44.062-04:002014-09-30T11:10:44.062-04:00I think you should look at your naming and labelli...I think you should look at your naming and labelling of people you call "cranks".<br /><br />Those of us who believe we are neutral, independent, and agnostic on scientific matters, consider such pejorative terms to be insulting, biased, and falling short of the standards of the scientific method.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com