Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Polymath257]

[

You miss the very OP point.

When Maxwell states Faraday "to have been in reality, a mathematician of a very high order", despite his lack of matemathical education, you love Maxwell and ignore what Maxwell thought of Faradays philosophical work. In fact you´re dismissing Maxwell himself by your quote above.

Not at all. Faraday was a great physicist. There is no question about that and nobody denies it.

Philosophy, in general, is rather useless except in the hands of a brilliant person. And even then, it only gives an intuition, not anything certain.

Again, could you recognize Maxwell's equations?

A description without scientifically explaining the assumed forces in play is nothing but assumptions and full of biased ad hoc assumptions until the force is explained.

You can't explain basic forces *because* they are basic. And, again, we *do* have an explanation of gravity in terms of curvature of spacetime.

 

[Polymath257]

To me this is certainly not just a "side note" at all, as I have "just" ONE E&M FORCE working by two opposite but complementary polarities, working by all charges, all frequencies and all ranges in micro- and macrocosm.

Which only shows you have no idea what the Faraday tensor actually is.

Do you know the Lorentz force law?

And I take Michael Faraday to have had a similar universal E&M perception whith his work on chemistry and electromagnetic influence of forming molecular structures.

Yes, the electric properties of atoms are highly relevant for molecular bonding. Again, nobody disagrees with that. Faraday didn't work out the complete picture, though. He did some basic work in the electrical properties of chemical solutions, but never knew about electrons (for example). it took quantum mechanics to get a detailed description of how atoms bind together to form molecules.

 

[Polymath257]

You are welcome to inform yourself by reading my RF OP`s..

In other words, nothing. Error-the requested search could not be found.

How do you yourself think very alternate thoughts and descriptions and explanations are welcomed in the orthodox peer review establishment?

Yes, absolutely, they are. Of course, they have to be detailed, be supported by the evidence, and provide a better description than what is already used.

 

[Left Coast]

You are welcome to inform yourself by reading my RF OP`s..

A) that link didn’t work.
B) I've seen quite a few of your OPs in the past. In none of them that I've seen have you ever presented any original scientific research of your own. You're welcome to show me one for starters.

How do you yourself think very alternate thoughts and descriptions and explanations are welcomed in the orthodox peer review establishment?

When not supported by empirical data derived from methodologically rigorous research? Poorly, as they should be.

So again I ask - what rigorous scientific testing of your ideas have you done?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Degree programs are a useful way to learn about the field you are contributing to and they help you raise funding for your experiments through, for instance, professorships. They are neither necessary nor sufficient for this.

I would say they are often necessary if only because an undergraduate degree is a prerequisite for postgraduate education. There are outliers who can make significant contributions to research or invention without attending higher education or having a postgraduate degree, but there's a reason Nobel laureates in STEM fields, for example, and tech pioneers like Guido van Rossum tend to have such degrees—usually a master's/PhD or even more than one.

One of my friends who is an esteemed professor told me that they teach students the year before they enter their doctorate programs and many of their students do not know what a control group is. These are people that are unlikely to make significant contributions to their fields.

That seems to me a major stretch. Sure, it's not ideal for a PhD student not to know about control groups prior to enrolling in a PhD program, but I see no reason that missing one piece or even multiple pieces of knowledge makes them unlikely to make significant contributions to their fields. Many people even start from scratch in some fields when they shift careers into their 30s or 40s, sometimes even later, and have no problem becoming quite successful and knowledgeable.

One of the most knowledgeable software architects I used to follow on social media was in his late 50s. He said his formal education was in civil engineering, and he shifted his career to programming in his 30s, if I recall correctly. He progressed in that field beyond many who start in it in their 20s. This is an example of how a degree in a field is not a must in order to excel in that field (outside of research and academia, at least), but it also goes to show that initially being relatively behind doesn't necessarily say anything about later contributions to a field or success in it.

 

[Ella S.]

I would say they are often necessary if only because an undergraduate degree is a prerequisite for postgraduate education. There are outliers who can make significant contributions to research or invention without attending higher education or having a postgraduate degree, but there's a reason Nobel laureates in STEM fields, for example, and tech pioneers like Guido van Rossum tend to have such degrees—usually a master's/PhD or even more than one.

If there are outliers, then the degree is not wholly necessary. You give another example of this later in your post, too.

I agree that it is highly recommended but this misses my point entirely. I also think there's a difference between contributing to a field and becoming a Nobel laureate or a tech pioneer. I think every published paper contributes to a field, often in ways we don't fully appreciate until they become more relevant later.

That seems to me a major stretch. Sure, it's not ideal for a PhD student not to know about control groups prior to enrolling in a PhD program, but I see no reason that missing one piece or even multiple pieces of knowledge makes them unlikely to make significant contributions to their fields. Many people even start from scratch in some fields when they shift careers into their 30s or 40s, sometimes even later, and have no problem becoming quite successful and knowledgeable.

One of the most knowledgeable software architects I used to follow on social media was in his late 50s. He said his formal education was in civil engineering, and he shifted his career to programming in his 30s, if I recall correctly. He progressed in that field beyond many who start in it in their 20s. This is an example of how a degree in a field is not a must in order to excel in that field (outside of research and academia, at least), but it also goes to show that initially being relatively behind doesn't necessarily say anything about later contributions to a field or success in it.

It's not that they're behind in knowledge. It's that they don't care about contributing to the field and don't pay attention in their classes. These are the people who get PhD's for the clout or because they're well-off and it's expected of them, not people interested in contributing to the field.

Of course, they might eventually change their attitude later and take the field seriously. It's just unlikely.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You miss the very OP point.
When Maxwell states Faraday "to have been in reality, a mathematician of a very high order", despite his lack of matemathical education, you love Maxwell and ignore what Maxwell thought of Faradays philosophical work. In fact you´re dismissing Maxwell himself by your quote above.

Not at all. Faraday was a great physicist. There is no question about that and nobody denies it.

You still miss the very OP-points here.

When Maxwell states Faraday "to have been in reality, a mathematician of a very high order", Maxwell acknowledge Faraday´s philosophical skills which led to Faradays brilliant scientific inventions and subsequently to Maxwells equations, but you ignore the fact that philosopical skills is paramount before using matemathical skills, equations and calculations with you reply here:

Polymath257 said: ↑
I would bet that our friend wouldn't be able to even recognize Maxwell's equations, let alone use them to actually describe anything.

Native said: ↑
A description without scientifically explaining the assumed forces in play is nothing but assumptions and full of biased ad hoc assumptions until the force is explained.

You don´t give me the same philosophical credit as you, via Maxwell give Faraday, simply because everything which count for you is mathematics, equations and calculations – even if much of the standing cosmological philosophy is in the dark because natural philosophy has long time been left out in the scientific educations.

Again, could you recognize Maxwell's equations?

Everything can be learned by studies, but this isn´t my personal interest at all - as with Faradays.

Native said: ↑
A description without scientifically explaining the assumed forces in play is nothing but assumptions and full of biased ad hoc assumptions until the force is explained.

You can't explain basic forces *because* they are basic.

Yet another circular Merry-Go-Round-argument If something is basic, everybody can explain and understand it.

And, again, we *do* have an explanation of gravity in terms of curvature of spacetime.

NO, you certainly mean a DESCRIPTION, as you and everybody else also cannot EXPLAIN scientifically by what dynamic means this Einsteinian mental construct should work.

But of course there are numerous mathematical equations connected to this unexplained concept

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You are welcome to inform yourself by reading my RF OP`s..

In other words, nothing. Error-the requested search could not be found.

Well, I´m having no troubles at all opening this link, so I suggest you to contact the RF-board to get an answer to this.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You are welcome to inform yourself by reading my RF OP`s..

A) that link didn’t work.

As already said to Polymath257:

Well, I´m having no troubles at all opening this link, so I suggest you to contact the RF-board to get an answer to this.

B) I've seen quite a few of your OPs in the past. In none of them that I've seen have you ever presented any original scientific research of your own. You're welcome to show me one for starters.

This OP is about "Public Educations - And Independent Self Taught Research" and if you don´t take philosophical ponderings as a valid and important research, you of course miss most of my OP-contents.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say they are often necessary if only because an undergraduate degree is a prerequisite for postgraduate education. There are outliers who can make significant contributions to research or invention without attending higher education or having a postgraduate degree, but there's a reason Nobel laureates in STEM fields, for example, and tech pioneers like Guido van Rossum tend to have such degrees—usually a master's/PhD or even more than one.



That seems to me a major stretch. Sure, it's not ideal for a PhD student not to know about control groups prior to enrolling in a PhD program, but I see no reason that missing one piece or even multiple pieces of knowledge makes them unlikely to make significant contributions to their fields. Many people even start from scratch in some fields when they shift careers into their 30s or 40s, sometimes even later, and have no problem becoming quite successful and knowledgeable.

One of the most knowledgeable software architects I used to follow on social media was in his late 50s. He said his formal education was in civil engineering, and he shifted his career to programming in his 30s, if I recall correctly. He progressed in that field beyond many who start in it in their 20s. This is an example of how a degree in a field is not a must in order to excel in that field (outside of research and academia, at least), but it also goes to show that initially being relatively behind doesn't necessarily say anything about later contributions to a field or success in it.

Okay, let me try to explain it for 2 related aspects of it.
One - there is no one field of studying for all the world including humans even for philosophy, because philosophy is not a field of study. It is a collection of different cognitive models/methods/tools, that yields different results depending on how they are taken for granted.
Two - some experts in a given field might be really good in their field, but it won't stop even some of them for acting as if their field applies to all of the world.

So what is the overall most common cognitive model that leads to the idea that there is one field of study that works on all of the world?
"...
Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. Man’s endless search for concrete proofs of his beliefs is seen as a confirmation of naturalistic methodology. Naturalists point out that even when one scientific theory is abandoned in favour of another, man does not despair of knowing nature, nor does he repudiate the “natural method” in his search for truth. Theories change; methodology does not. ..."
naturalism | philosophy

And now it becomes weird, because nature is in principle completely knowable is what? It is a proportion that can be tested but you get different result depending of what you take for granted in your thinking. And that is not just about you or me.

 

[blü 2]

This OP is all about how new ideas always derives from individuals who are able to sense and think independently outside the squared boxes and come up with new ideas and logical solutions.

Here Michael Faraday as an excellent example - Michael Faraday - Wikipedia

Excerpt:
Michael Faraday: 22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867) was an English scientist who contributed to the study of electromagnetism and electrochemistry. His main discoveries include the principles underlying electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism, and electrolysis.

Although Faraday received little formal education, he was one of the most influential scientists in history. It was by his research on the magnetic field around a conductor carrying a direct current that Faraday established the basis for the concept of the electromagnetic field in physics. Faraday also established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an underlying relationship between the two phenomena.

He similarly discovered the principles of electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism, and the laws of electrolysis. His inventions of electromagnetic rotary devices formed the foundation of electric motor technology, and it was largely due oi his efforts that electricity became practical for use in technology.

Faraday was an excellent experimentalist who conveyed his ideas in clear and simple language; his mathematical abilities, however, did not extend as far as trigonometry and were limited to the simplest algebra.

James Clerk Maxwell took the work of Faraday and others and summarized it in a set of equations which is accepted as the basis of all modern theories of electromagnetic phenomena. On Faraday's uses of lines of force, Maxwell wrote that they show Faraday "to have been in reality, a mathematician of a very high order – one from whom the mathematicians of the future may derive valuable and fertile methods.
--------------------

A 15:41 minute video about Michael Faraday from the “See The Pattern”-channel:

In this episode, we will explore the remarkable contributions made by Michael Faraday.

My comments:
Apparently, Michael Faraday were a genuine intuitive natural philosopher despite his lack of former education - maybe even exactly because of this.

- I find it very remarkable that the about 350 year old basic Newtonian ideas of “gravity” still governs most of the standing cosmology. Since Newton, there have been lots of scientific electromagnetic discoveries, but it seems that “the old Newton ghost” STILL haunts the standing cosmological science.

Well, I guess it´s just the usual inertia of humans not making changing paradigm shift when once have been hypnotized and indoctrinated long enough to believe in something – in the Newtonian case, even something which nobody can explain scientifically by what dynamically means an assumed force should work.

This is a de facto practicing occultism and such often lead to superstitious conclusions and wrong predictions, as with Newtons mental construct of his “Universal law of celestial motion around a gravity center”, which was directly contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve.

This contradiction led to an extension of the old dogmatics and more occult superstitious inventions of “heavy black holes” and “dark matter”, simply because conventional scientists didn´t include the natural electromagnetic logics in fundamental elements and their electromagnetic role in formation and cosmic motions, hence these scientists miss a ¾ part of the fundamental cosmological explanations and logical arguments - and the strongest ones as well.

Do I understand you correctly?

You're saying that the entirety of scientists in cosmology are not just ignoring, but refusing to understand, the known role of electromagnetism?

Because they're ignorant? Blind? Stoopid? Pig-headed?

All of them?

Really?

 

[Native]

Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. Man’s endless search for concrete proofs of his beliefs is seen as a confirmation of naturalistic methodology. Naturalists point out that even when one scientific theory is abandoned in favour of another, man does not despair of knowing nature, nor does he repudiate the “natural method” in his search for truth. Theories change; methodology does not. ..." naturalism | philosophy

I agree on this.

And now it becomes weird, because nature is in principle completely knowable is what? It is a proportion that can be tested but you get different result depending of what you take for granted in your thinking.

"Naturalism" isn´t weird at all, as it´s based on observations of nature in general, and "individual thinking" becomes a "collective thinking" when several individuals are observing the same natural phenomenon or object on and above the Earth.

Such collective global observations are what constitutes the numerous cultural and very similar religious/mythological Stories of Creation. Individuals in all cultures have observed the same basic physical terrestrial, astronomical and cosmological conditions - and even got intuitive/spiritual informations of it all as well.

 

[Native]

Do I understand you correctly?
You're saying that the entirety of scientists in cosmology are not just ignoring, but refusing to understand, the known role of electromagnetism?

You´re putting alien words in my mouth, but well, those who believe in gravity only, certainly qualifies to this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree on this.

"Naturalism" isn´t weird at all, as it´s based on observations of nature in general, and "individual thinking" becomes a "collective thinking" when several individuals are observing the same natural phenomenon or object on and above the Earth.

Such collective global observations are what constitutes the numerous cultural and very similar religious/mythological Stories of Creation. Individuals in all cultures have observed the same basic physical terrestrial, astronomical and cosmological conditions - and even got intuitive/spiritual informations of it all as well.

Yeah, I am from a different tradition with philosophy and disagree with your version of philosophy.

 

[blü 2]

You´re putting alien words in my mouth, but well, those who believe in gravity only, certainly qualifies to this.

So what evidence is being ignored that shows the role of EM is greatly underestimated by the professionals?

 

[Native]

Yeah, I am from a different tradition with philosophy and disagree with your version of philosophy.

No matter which philosophical tradition you´re coming from, NATURE as I described it above, is the same for all of us. Nature itself don´t care about philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No matter which philosophical tradition you´re coming from, NATURE as I described it above, is the same for all of us. Nature itself don´t care about philosophy.

Yeah, we even don't agree on the-thing-in-itself. And properly not on this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

 

[Native]

So what evidence is being ignored that shows the role of EM is greatly underestimated by the professionals?

First: Telescopic informations of the observable Universe wouldn´t even be possible without electromagnetic frequency radiations.
Second: Even as strong electromagnetic radiation are observed to beam out from galactic planes and otherwhere in cosmos, conventional ortodox gravitationalists ignores this fact as an important part of the cosmological formation.

- This OP has Michael Faraday as an example. His electromagnetic Faraday Motor resemble the very electromagnetic principles of rotation and perpendicular motions everywhere.

 

[Native]

Yeah, we even don't agree on the-thing-in-itself.

Well, if one don´t connect things i.e., ”natural observable things" to be a part of the-thing-in-itself, you´re entire constituency is really left with no-thing but theories of theories.

And properly not on this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

I sort of agree in this. "Man" is not the only being who "measures nature", as everything else also "mirrors = measures" "the-thing-in-iself".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, if one don´t connect things i.e., ”natural observable things" to be a part of the-thing-in-itself, you´re entire constituency is really left with no-thing but theories of theories.

I sort of agree in this. "Man" is not the only being who "measures nature", as everything else also "mirrors = measures" "the-thing-in-iself".

You do it differently. In my tradition the-thing-in-itself is an empty abstraction for anything other that it must be there with reason, but otherwise unknowable than being in itself.