20-10-2012, 12:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 20-10-2012, 02:09 PM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Accident Investigations- Challenger Disaster:
"Feynman, alone, was the only one on the committee that looked deeper into the disaster, and, not surprisingly, he was the only one who acually discovered possible mechanical causes for the Challenger disintegration. His findings were quite different than the other investigators who seemed to be operating according to "business as usual". The committee attempted to surpress his findings within the final report, yet he resisted this attempt and they were included in the appendix. In order to make his own findings public he bypassed convention and went straight to the public during a press conference which proved to be quite embarrassing to NASA management, giving the now famous presentation seen in the video."
"....
Secondly, each, in their own way, viewed belief in authority and an authoritarian world view as very dangerous and almost hypnotic.
Feynman: "Learn from science that you must doubt the experts.....Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."[SUP]18[/SUP]
Doubting experts and core underlying assumptions is not optional according to Feynman. It is a mandatory condition for the practice of science beyond "business as usual", or the generation and application of stock puzzle solutions.
Einstein: "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself."[SUP]19[/SUP]
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth".[SUP]20[/SUP]
In the case of David Bohm, a man widely considered as one of the best quantum mechanicians ever, he considered giving up physics altogether as a waste of his time.
Max Planck, considered the founder of quantum mechanics, offered this sobering account of the true nature of a scientific revolution as he personally experienced it (which is quoted in Kuhn's book):
"A 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."[SUP]21[/SUP]
These people seem very aware of the difference between individual scientific creativity and institutionalized science."
"...
1) The state of the NIST professionalism and transparency (government)
2) The state of professional and academic skepticism, The publication and peer review process (professional and academic)
3) The state of journalism - The 4th branch of government
4) The state of citizen researchers
5) The active awareness of individual citizens
with respect to the World Trade Center collapses there was no protection against false technical claims on any of these levels.
.....
Individual citizens
In the case of 9/11 there are supposedly various groups of private citizens that claim to do their own research. They exist within a general polarity some of us call "truthers" and "debunkers". One may assume that some of these groups would have been interested in the most detailed mappings of the visible collapse processes available to the public. But once again, this is found not to be the case. In the cases of the scholars organizations or AE911T, for example, detailed mappings are perceived as a threat.
One would think that if the information in these mappings was damaging to many common "truther" arguments 9which they are), then debunkers would utilize the mappings. But this does not happen either since the mappings do not support debunker beliefs and they are quite embarrassing to the NIST.
Inability to distinguish technical fact from fiction
The resulting environment can be so anti-intellectual and laden with taboo that if accurate, verifiable mappings surfaced, people wouldn't be able to distinguish between the illusions and the reality even if their very lives depended upon it.
The environment is filled with so much useless and distracting crap that people on the whole cannot distinguish between real or unreal information to "save their souls". People in general loose the means by which fantasy could be distinguished from the reality in this condition. Hence they have no means by which to defend themselves from being manipulated by false technical claims.
The only defense remaining
The only defense left is one's own ability to fact-check claims through one's own direct efforts. There is no other way. But how many people will show the initiative or have the talents or experience to check ones facts directly?
Consider the large, large majority of people who have neither the patience, ability or motivation to check facts using one's own direct effort. They will be forced to choose a belief. What choice do they have? Admitting that this is the case can be quite a humbling experience which requires honesty and self awareness."
"Feynman, alone, was the only one on the committee that looked deeper into the disaster, and, not surprisingly, he was the only one who acually discovered possible mechanical causes for the Challenger disintegration. His findings were quite different than the other investigators who seemed to be operating according to "business as usual". The committee attempted to surpress his findings within the final report, yet he resisted this attempt and they were included in the appendix. In order to make his own findings public he bypassed convention and went straight to the public during a press conference which proved to be quite embarrassing to NASA management, giving the now famous presentation seen in the video."
"....
Secondly, each, in their own way, viewed belief in authority and an authoritarian world view as very dangerous and almost hypnotic.
Feynman: "Learn from science that you must doubt the experts.....Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."[SUP]18[/SUP]
Doubting experts and core underlying assumptions is not optional according to Feynman. It is a mandatory condition for the practice of science beyond "business as usual", or the generation and application of stock puzzle solutions.
Einstein: "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself."[SUP]19[/SUP]
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth".[SUP]20[/SUP]
In the case of David Bohm, a man widely considered as one of the best quantum mechanicians ever, he considered giving up physics altogether as a waste of his time.
Max Planck, considered the founder of quantum mechanics, offered this sobering account of the true nature of a scientific revolution as he personally experienced it (which is quoted in Kuhn's book):
"A 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."[SUP]21[/SUP]
These people seem very aware of the difference between individual scientific creativity and institutionalized science."
"...
1) The state of the NIST professionalism and transparency (government)
2) The state of professional and academic skepticism, The publication and peer review process (professional and academic)
3) The state of journalism - The 4th branch of government
4) The state of citizen researchers
5) The active awareness of individual citizens
with respect to the World Trade Center collapses there was no protection against false technical claims on any of these levels.
.....
Individual citizens
In the case of 9/11 there are supposedly various groups of private citizens that claim to do their own research. They exist within a general polarity some of us call "truthers" and "debunkers". One may assume that some of these groups would have been interested in the most detailed mappings of the visible collapse processes available to the public. But once again, this is found not to be the case. In the cases of the scholars organizations or AE911T, for example, detailed mappings are perceived as a threat.
One would think that if the information in these mappings was damaging to many common "truther" arguments 9which they are), then debunkers would utilize the mappings. But this does not happen either since the mappings do not support debunker beliefs and they are quite embarrassing to the NIST.
Inability to distinguish technical fact from fiction
The resulting environment can be so anti-intellectual and laden with taboo that if accurate, verifiable mappings surfaced, people wouldn't be able to distinguish between the illusions and the reality even if their very lives depended upon it.
The environment is filled with so much useless and distracting crap that people on the whole cannot distinguish between real or unreal information to "save their souls". People in general loose the means by which fantasy could be distinguished from the reality in this condition. Hence they have no means by which to defend themselves from being manipulated by false technical claims.
The only defense remaining
The only defense left is one's own ability to fact-check claims through one's own direct efforts. There is no other way. But how many people will show the initiative or have the talents or experience to check ones facts directly?
Consider the large, large majority of people who have neither the patience, ability or motivation to check facts using one's own direct effort. They will be forced to choose a belief. What choice do they have? Admitting that this is the case can be quite a humbling experience which requires honesty and self awareness."