questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Everyone has an opinion. But can personal opinion be of use in Scientific Endeavour?
In the best case scenario, which was perhaps during Albert Einstein's live times, the journals
really read the articles of the authors trying to demonstrate them their fatal mistake.
Then there could be a productive discussion between three authorities: the reviewers, the editor, and the
author (is better for everyone to be informed, as each of the parties can read the article).
Besides logic, the scientific community always uses feelings (in my opinion), but feelings can
be positive or negative, as there are two options in the realm of feelings:
scepticism or trust. I follow my ``guiding star'' in a way that I must be convinced (by me or others)
if I have made a mistake. This mistake must be found, and I must be convinced
that it is a mistake. This principle is my guiding star. Some journals have rejected
some of my papers without even trying to convince me of having done mistakes.
There is a historical case about Einstein. After his publication of the logical
debunkment of Sir Newton's absolute space and absolute time, too many scientists
were not accepting his debunkment. Therefore, the unexplainable feeling of
scepticism has severely slowed down the ``train'' of science for as long as
17 years (and the greatest Theory of Relativity has not been renowned by a
Nobel Prize)! The fact, that Einstein had problems in Scientific Community is
given in the historic video:
Described suffering of Prof. Einstein indicates, that "scientific scepticism'' is nothing more than a negative emotion. But science could be conducted in positive way rather than negative. How exactly? If the mind of the reader would see that the logic of the
paper seems not to be violated, the mind would trust this conclusion and
accept the paper. Humankind shows a terrible conflict between feelings and
mind. Muting the mind in favour of emotions is simply called
madness (in my opinion), but conflict between mind and feeling of beauty is discussed
in this video:
In the best case scenario, which was perhaps during Albert Einstein's live times, the journals
really read the articles of the authors trying to demonstrate them their fatal mistake.
Then there could be a productive discussion between three authorities: the reviewers, the editor, and the
author (is better for everyone to be informed, as each of the parties can read the article).
Besides logic, the scientific community always uses feelings (in my opinion), but feelings can
be positive or negative, as there are two options in the realm of feelings:
scepticism or trust. I follow my ``guiding star'' in a way that I must be convinced (by me or others)
if I have made a mistake. This mistake must be found, and I must be convinced
that it is a mistake. This principle is my guiding star. Some journals have rejected
some of my papers without even trying to convince me of having done mistakes.
There is a historical case about Einstein. After his publication of the logical
debunkment of Sir Newton's absolute space and absolute time, too many scientists
were not accepting his debunkment. Therefore, the unexplainable feeling of
scepticism has severely slowed down the ``train'' of science for as long as
17 years (and the greatest Theory of Relativity has not been renowned by a
Nobel Prize)! The fact, that Einstein had problems in Scientific Community is
given in the historic video:
Described suffering of Prof. Einstein indicates, that "scientific scepticism'' is nothing more than a negative emotion. But science could be conducted in positive way rather than negative. How exactly? If the mind of the reader would see that the logic of the
paper seems not to be violated, the mind would trust this conclusion and
accept the paper. Humankind shows a terrible conflict between feelings and
mind. Muting the mind in favour of emotions is simply called
madness (in my opinion), but conflict between mind and feeling of beauty is discussed
in this video:
Last edited: