Authority in science

Religion and Secularism
1

I’ve been thinking about the “elevator conversation” about what science is. I keep coming back to the definition of the word “authority”. Looking for good quotes, I came across this article. ]

The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.
Because of these safeguards, and if the science is conducted properly, no single person can promote a result that merits the name "scientific".
2

The irony of the article, “Authority in Science", “How science differs from religion", is funny to me. Not that I disagree. Just, my suspicions about religion and what they call “God". I think that back before the Age of Deities, according to the translation of older text that I have read. God, was not a deity, but the term used for the “Knowledge of man". In other words, “god" was science. It was the Age of Domestication. By far the greatest leap in science mankind has ever known.
One has to think of Einstein who science was done without evidence. Only to be proven by others, truly amazing. I don’t think Einstein would fit into the articles definition of science.

3
I've been thinking about the "elevator conversation" about what science is. I keep coming back to the definition of the word "authority". Looking for good quotes, I came across this article. ]
The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.
Because of these safeguards, and if the science is conducted properly, no single person can promote a result that merits the name "scientific".
In this sense, "authority". means anyone who is looked to as knowledgeable in the subject at hand. It could be a religion, a psychic, -- whatever people look to for interpretation and guidance that is not objective science. Lois
4
One has to think of Einstein who science was done without evidence. Only to be proven by others, truly amazing. I don't think Einstein would fit into the articles definition of science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. You obviously don't know what Theoretical Physics is. A theoretical physicist is every inch a scientist and what he practices is science. Einstein is seen by most scientists as the greatest theoretical physicist in the world. Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, best known for his Special and General Theory of Relativity and the concept of mass-energy equivalence expressed by the famous equation, E = mc2. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" and he made some essential contributions to the early development of quantum theory. He was named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine in 1999, the fourth most admired person of the 20th Century according to a 1999 Gallup poll, and “the greatest scientist of the twentieth century and one of the supreme intellects of all time" according to “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" in 1978. What is a Theoretical Physicist? Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature. Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist, although in his own time his profession was called "natural philosophy". By Newton's era people had already used algebra and geometry to build marvelous works of architecture, including the great cathedrals of Europe, but algebra and geometry only describe things that are sitting still. In order to describe things that are moving or changing in some way, Newton invented calculus. The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in England. Today's theoretical physicists are often working on the boundaries of known mathematics, sometimes inventing new mathematics as they need it, like Newton did with calculus. Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory and experiment went together. http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.htmli See also http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
5

From the wiki on Issac Newton here]
Religious views:

However, this type of view 'has lost support of late with the availability of Newton's theological papers', and now most scholars identify Newton as an Antitrinitarian monotheist. Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
Effect on religious thought: Natural religion?
The clarity and simplicity of science was seen as a way to combat the emotional and metaphysical superlatives of both superstitious enthusiasm and the threat of atheism, and at the same time, the second wave of English deists used Newton's discoveries to demonstrate the possibility of a "Natural Religion".
God as rational designer?
Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles. These principles were available for all people to discover, allowed people to pursue their own aims fruitfully in this life, not the next, and to perfect themselves with their own rational powers.
6
One has to think of Einstein who science was done without evidence. Only to be proven by others, truly amazing. I don't think Einstein would fit into the articles definition of science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. You obviously don't know what Theoretical Physics is. A theoretical physicist is every inch a scientist and what he practices is science. Einstein is seen by most scientists as the greatest theoretical physicist in the world. Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, best known for his Special and General Theory of Relativity and the concept of mass-energy equivalence expressed by the famous equation, E = mc2. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" and he made some essential contributions to the early development of quantum theory. He was named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine in 1999, the fourth most admired person of the 20th Century according to a 1999 Gallup poll, and “the greatest scientist of the twentieth century and one of the supreme intellects of all time" according to “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" in 1978. What is a Theoretical Physicist? Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature. Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist, although in his own time his profession was called "natural philosophy". By Newton's era people had already used algebra and geometry to build marvelous works of architecture, including the great cathedrals of Europe, but algebra and geometry only describe things that are sitting still. In order to describe things that are moving or changing in some way, Newton invented calculus. The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in England. Today's theoretical physicists are often working on the boundaries of known mathematics, sometimes inventing new mathematics as they need it, like Newton did with calculus. Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory and experiment went together. http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.htmli See also http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics {The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.} Note, this is not what happened with Einstein. He was considered a scientist based upon theory. Yet he had no proof. And he had no evidence.
7
One has to think of Einstein who science was done without evidence. Only to be proven by others, truly amazing. I don't think Einstein would fit into the articles definition of science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. You obviously don't know what Theoretical Physics is. A theoretical physicist is every inch a scientist and what he practices is science. Einstein is seen by most scientists as the greatest theoretical physicist in the world. Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, best known for his Special and General Theory of Relativity and the concept of mass-energy equivalence expressed by the famous equation, E = mc2. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" and he made some essential contributions to the early development of quantum theory. He was named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine in 1999, the fourth most admired person of the 20th Century according to a 1999 Gallup poll, and “the greatest scientist of the twentieth century and one of the supreme intellects of all time" according to “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" in 1978. What is a Theoretical Physicist? Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature. Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist, although in his own time his profession was called "natural philosophy". By Newton's era people had already used algebra and geometry to build marvelous works of architecture, including the great cathedrals of Europe, but algebra and geometry only describe things that are sitting still. In order to describe things that are moving or changing in some way, Newton invented calculus. The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in England. Today's theoretical physicists are often working on the boundaries of known mathematics, sometimes inventing new mathematics as they need it, like Newton did with calculus. Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory and experiment went together. http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.htmli See also http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics {The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.} Note, this is not what happened with Einstein. He was considered a scientist based upon theory. Yet he had no proof. And he had no evidence. You show that have no understanding of theoretical science. There was plenty of evidence supporting Einstein's theories (and the theories of other scientists). Without scientific theories--which are completely different from infornal theories--there would be no understanding of the cosmos. "A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested. "Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time). "'Theory' is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations." Read more at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory See also, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
8
One has to think of Einstein who science was done without evidence. Only to be proven by others, truly amazing. I don't think Einstein would fit into the articles definition of science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. You obviously don't know what Theoretical Physics is. A theoretical physicist is every inch a scientist and what he practices is science. Einstein is seen by most scientists as the greatest theoretical physicist in the world. Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, best known for his Special and General Theory of Relativity and the concept of mass-energy equivalence expressed by the famous equation, E = mc2. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" and he made some essential contributions to the early development of quantum theory. He was named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine in 1999, the fourth most admired person of the 20th Century according to a 1999 Gallup poll, and “the greatest scientist of the twentieth century and one of the supreme intellects of all time" according to “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" in 1978. What is a Theoretical Physicist? Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature. Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist, although in his own time his profession was called "natural philosophy". By Newton's era people had already used algebra and geometry to build marvelous works of architecture, including the great cathedrals of Europe, but algebra and geometry only describe things that are sitting still. In order to describe things that are moving or changing in some way, Newton invented calculus. The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in England. Today's theoretical physicists are often working on the boundaries of known mathematics, sometimes inventing new mathematics as they need it, like Newton did with calculus. Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory and experiment went together. http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.htmli See also http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics {The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.} Note, this is not what happened with Einstein. He was considered a scientist based upon theory. Yet he had no proof. And he had no evidence. You show that have no understanding of theoretical science. There was plenty of evidence supporting Einstein's theories (and the theories of other scientists). Without scientific theories--which are completely different from infornal theories--there would be no understanding of the cosmos. "A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested. "Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time). "'Theory' is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations." Read more at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory See also, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity The subject of Lausten post was the article “Authority in Science". You are changing the subject. What I stated was that in the article “Authority in Science" they would have dismiss Einstein because he had no evidence. I was pointing out that Einstein did not fit their definition of science. Therefore I did not agree with the article’s definition of science. I think you and I are on the same page with Einstein. The question is do you agree or disagree with the article?
9
The subject of Lausten post was the article “Authority in Science". You are changing the subject. What I stated was that in the article “Authority in Science" they would have dismiss Einstein because he had no evidence. I was pointing out that Einstein did not fit their definition of science. Therefore I did not agree with the article’s definition of science. I think you and I are on the same page with Einstein. The question is do you agree or disagree with the article?
You changed the subject with your first post Mike. Besides being wrong about "they" dismissing Einstein.
10
The subject of Lausten post was the article “Authority in Science". You are changing the subject. What I stated was that in the article “Authority in Science" they would have dismiss Einstein because he had no evidence. I was pointing out that Einstein did not fit their definition of science. Therefore I did not agree with the article’s definition of science. I think you and I are on the same page with Einstein. The question is do you agree or disagree with the article?
You changed the subject with your first post Mike. Besides being wrong about "they" dismissing Einstein. The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence. Boy, am I missing the point of your post? I thought the above statement, which comes from your article say that science needs evidence. And it is my understanding that Einstein worked with theory. And it took the Manhattan Project to prove his theory. But the history of the Manhattan Project says they trusted Einstein more than his theory, which is not the way the article says it should be.
11
The subject of Lausten post was the article “Authority in Science". You are changing the subject. What I stated was that in the article “Authority in Science" they would have dismiss Einstein because he had no evidence. I was pointing out that Einstein did not fit their definition of science. Therefore I did not agree with the article’s definition of science. I think you and I are on the same page with Einstein. The question is do you agree or disagree with the article?
You changed the subject with your first post Mike. Besides being wrong about "they" dismissing Einstein. The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence. Boy, am I missing the point of your post? I thought the above statement, which comes from your article say that science needs evidence. And it is my understanding that Einstein worked with theory. And it took the Manhattan Project to prove his theory. But the history of the Manhattan Project says they trusted Einstein more than his theory, which is not the way the article says it should be. Arthur Eddington is widely credited as providing the observational evidence that proved Einstein's Theory of Relativity. See Illuminating relativity: Experimenting with the stars]. Your last sentence makes no sense. "...they trusted Einstein more than his theory"? What is that supposed to mean?
12
And it is my understanding that Einstein worked with theory. And it took the Manhattan Project to prove his theory.
No. If you mean special relativity, then there were already proofs before Einstein had given his interpretations (e.g. Fizeau experiment (1851), Michelson-Morley (1887)). But of course you could say that Einstein just gave an interpretation. Maybe the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment is the first real, direct test of special relativity, after Einstein presented special relativity. If you mean E=mc2, then the first confirmations were in 1933 when physicists we able to measure the mass differences of atom nuclei due to radioactivity (Einstein rightly guessed that in radioactivity the first confirmations might be found, due to the high energy output of radioactive processes. ) And if you mean general relativity, then Eddington indeed was the first who had done measurements that hinted that Einstein was correct. And to say Einstein had no evidence is ridiculous: his evidence however was mathematical, but his input were experimental confirmed theories, like the Maxwell theory, and Newtonian mechanics (as first order approximation of relativity). I think the word individual is important here:
The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.
A fact or theory is only really accepted when more than one scientist is empirically confirming the fact or theory. But if scientists are right (i.e. there is more than enough proof for their ideas), then they are authorities. This can hurt, especially if the science in itself is too complicated to understand, and/or goes against intuitions: think about the Einstein disprovers, Quantum-Sceptics, anti-evolutionists, global-warming deniers, etc. The problem is that authority is a sociological category:
A person accepted as a source of reliable information on a subject. the world's foremost authority on orangutans
Wiktionary] Bold by me. In this sense, science and scientists are authorities. Much misused in advertising ("Proven to wash whiter than all other washing powders on the market!" "Kills 99% of all kitchen bacteria!"), and several other places. Very often people try to masquerade as scientist (or doctor), because it gives them authority.
13

Thank you sirs. Just couldn’t get the energy up to bother. And your data is much better than anything I would have come up with.

14
One has to think of Einstein who science was done without evidence. Only to be proven by others, truly amazing. I don't think Einstein would fit into the articles definition of science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. You obviously don't know what Theoretical Physics is. A theoretical physicist is every inch a scientist and what he practices is science. Einstein is seen by most scientists as the greatest theoretical physicist in the world. Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, best known for his Special and General Theory of Relativity and the concept of mass-energy equivalence expressed by the famous equation, E = mc2. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" and he made some essential contributions to the early development of quantum theory. He was named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine in 1999, the fourth most admired person of the 20th Century according to a 1999 Gallup poll, and “the greatest scientist of the twentieth century and one of the supreme intellects of all time" according to “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" in 1978. What is a Theoretical Physicist? Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature. Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist, although in his own time his profession was called "natural philosophy". By Newton's era people had already used algebra and geometry to build marvelous works of architecture, including the great cathedrals of Europe, but algebra and geometry only describe things that are sitting still. In order to describe things that are moving or changing in some way, Newton invented calculus. The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in England. Today's theoretical physicists are often working on the boundaries of known mathematics, sometimes inventing new mathematics as they need it, like Newton did with calculus. Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory and experiment went together. http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.htmli See also http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics {The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.} Note, this is not what happened with Einstein. He was considered a scientist based upon theory. Yet he had no proof. And he had no evidence. You show that have no understanding of theoretical science. There was plenty of evidence supporting Einstein's theories (and the theories of other scientists). Without scientific theories--which are completely different from infornal theories--there would be no understanding of the cosmos. "A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested. "Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time). "'Theory' is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations." Read more at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory See also, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity The subject of Lausten post was the article “Authority in Science". You are changing the subject. What I stated was that in the article “Authority in Science" they would have dismiss Einstein because he had no evidence. I was pointing out that Einstein did not fit their definition of science. Therefore I did not agree with the article’s definition of science. I think you and I are on the same page with Einstein. The question is do you agree or disagree with the article? I didn't change the subject, you did. You brought up Einstein and claimed he was not a scientist. That was what I was responding to. I was right on topic in responding to your ridiculous post about Einstein. Lois
15

If I remember correctly, Einstein’s first, special relativity theory was initially regarded as well-constructed and because of the lack of physical evidence, dismissed. I don’t remember if it was Einstein or one of his colleagues, but someone at some point suggested that there was a quirk of motion in Mercury’s orbit that special relativity would predict correctly - it did - upon which Einstein and special relativity became a lot more respected. It wasn’t the big instant-fame progression from the instant of publication that we assume nowadays.

16
If I remember correctly, Einstein's first, special relativity theory was initially regarded as well-constructed and because of the lack of physical evidence, dismissed. I don't remember if it was Einstein or one of his colleagues, but someone at some point suggested that there was a quirk of motion in Mercury's orbit that special relativity would predict correctly - it did - upon which Einstein and special relativity became a lot more respected. It wasn't the big instant-fame progression from the instant of publication that we assume nowadays.
You are mixing up special and general relativity. The Perihelion precession of Mercury] was already known in the 19th century. It was Einstein's own victory that with his theory of special theory he could calculate this deviation of Newtonian physics exactly. The problem that was solved by the special theory of relativity is that Newtonian physics and the Maxwell theory do not fit. That problem was also already known and there were already a few trials that came at the correct formula, but only with some funny extra hypotheses. Einstein brought the presuppositions back to one: the laws of physics must be the same for every observer. With only one of these laws, that everybody, whatever his movement, measures the same speed of light, he derived the Lorentz transformations that are valid when transforming coordinates for one observer to another one moving with a constant speed relative to him. It took some time before his ideas were accepted, but several great physicists, like Max Planck, immediately saw the great value of it.
17
And it is my understanding that Einstein worked with theory. And it took the Manhattan Project to prove his theory.
No. If you mean special relativity, then there were already proofs before Einstein had given his interpretations (e.g. Fizeau experiment (1851), Michelson-Morley (1887)). But of course you could say that Einstein just gave an interpretation. Maybe the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment is the first real, direct test of special relativity, after Einstein presented special relativity. If you mean E=mc2, then the first confirmations were in 1933 when physicists we able to measure the mass differences of atom nuclei due to radioactivity (Einstein rightly guessed that in radioactivity the first confirmations might be found, due to the high energy output of radioactive processes. ) And if you mean general relativity, then Eddington indeed was the first who had done measurements that hinted that Einstein was correct. And to say Einstein had no evidence is ridiculous: his evidence however was mathematical, but his input were experimental confirmed theories, like the Maxwell theory, and Newtonian mechanics (as first order approximation of relativity). I think the word individual is important here:
The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.
A fact or theory is only really accepted when more than one scientist is empirically confirming the fact or theory. But if scientists are right (i.e. there is more than enough proof for their ideas), then they are authorities. This can hurt, especially if the science in itself is too complicated to understand, and/or goes against intuitions: think about the Einstein disprovers, Quantum-Sceptics, anti-evolutionists, global-warming deniers, etc. The problem is that authority is a sociological category:
A person accepted as a source of reliable information on a subject. the world's foremost authority on orangutans
Wiktionary] Reply from Mike. Note, having posting trouble. Really good and clear points. Very well done. I was thinking of the bomb and the way the historians are telling the story. How if Germany put it together first it could have a major impact on the war. That is if the bomb worked. And when certain German scientists were found working on the German project, Einstein wrote a letter to the President that help get the Manhattan Project going. So, would you not assume that if the bomb was scientifically fact and not theory, then Einstein and his letter would not be required because all paths to winning the war was already being taken. And you’re probably right, there is a lot more to the story than the historians are telling. I can't help thinking of the Either Winds, an accepted theory. And when they tried to measure the Either Winds it was the results that were not accepted because it disproved Either Winds. Point being that the definition of scientist and scientific may have had different meaning at different points in time. Einstein and the bomb and the men on the moon gave a new meaning and trust to the word scientist. Just as the failed attempt of "Global Warming" to explain human involvement in acceleration of the warming cycle has put the word “scientist" under the spotlight again. Al Gore was an “authority" figure and in the position to have the best data available. Maybe what the public needed was an “authority scientist" like Einstein or Edison. Do you think we can ever have an Einstein or Edison again? Stephen Hawking comes to mind for theory and scientist that are well known to the public.
18
One has to think of Einstein who science was done without evidence. Only to be proven by others, truly amazing. I don't think Einstein would fit into the articles definition of science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. You obviously don't know what Theoretical Physics is. A theoretical physicist is every inch a scientist and what he practices is science. Einstein is seen by most scientists as the greatest theoretical physicist in the world. Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, best known for his Special and General Theory of Relativity and the concept of mass-energy equivalence expressed by the famous equation, E = mc2. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" and he made some essential contributions to the early development of quantum theory. He was named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine in 1999, the fourth most admired person of the 20th Century according to a 1999 Gallup poll, and “the greatest scientist of the twentieth century and one of the supreme intellects of all time" according to “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" in 1978. What is a Theoretical Physicist? Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature. Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist, although in his own time his profession was called "natural philosophy". By Newton's era people had already used algebra and geometry to build marvelous works of architecture, including the great cathedrals of Europe, but algebra and geometry only describe things that are sitting still. In order to describe things that are moving or changing in some way, Newton invented calculus. The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in England. Today's theoretical physicists are often working on the boundaries of known mathematics, sometimes inventing new mathematics as they need it, like Newton did with calculus. Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory and experiment went together. http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.htmli See also http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics {The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.} Note, this is not what happened with Einstein. He was considered a scientist based upon theory. Yet he had no proof. And he had no evidence. You show that have no understanding of theoretical science. There was plenty of evidence supporting Einstein's theories (and the theories of other scientists). Without scientific theories--which are completely different from infornal theories--there would be no understanding of the cosmos. "A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested. "Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time). "'Theory' is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations." Read more at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory See also, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity The subject of Lausten post was the article “Authority in Science". You are changing the subject. What I stated was that in the article “Authority in Science" they would have dismiss Einstein because he had no evidence. I was pointing out that Einstein did not fit their definition of science. Therefore I did not agree with the article’s definition of science. I think you and I are on the same page with Einstein. The question is do you agree or disagree with the article? I didn't change the subject, you did. You brought up Einstein and claimed he was not a scientist. That was what I was responding to. I was right on topic in responding to your ridiculous post about Einstein. Lois A miss understanding. Sorry. What I was trying to say was that the article "Authority in Science" said you need proof or the "focus on evidence" to be called a scientist. That i had trouble with because of people like Einstein and Hawkins who work mostly in theories. Where is Hawkins' evidence of the God cell? It is all theory. You still have not answered the question. Do you agree or disagree with the article? That's the subject, not me.
19

Well, Mike, I think you should look for a book about the history of physics… It is a fascinating story, but it seems to me that you are somehow informed, but not very well informed. To correct everything you misinterpret is a bit too work much for a forum, at least for me. Sorry.

A miss understanding. Sorry. What I was trying to say was that the article "Authority in Science" said you need proof or the "focus on evidence" to be called a scientist. That i had trouble with because of people like Einstein and Hawkins who work mostly in theories. Where is Hawkins' evidence of the God cell? It is all theory. You still have not answered the question. Do you agree or disagree with the article? That's the subject, not me.
It is called science because the theories from which Einstein and Hawking derived their theories have at least some empirical support (sometimes very much of it), and they are open to 'verifi- or falsification' by observation and experiment. The author of the article is pretty clear: authority in science is not based on the works or saying of some single authority. 'Do you believe in Darwin' is a question that can only be asked by somebody who does not understand what science is. Same is true for Einstein. His theories were subject of empirical testing, and until now, they did pretty well. Even stronger, we use technologies that wouldn't work if they did not account for special and general relativity, like particle accelerators and GPS. Only with relativity it can be explained why gold has its yellow shine. And much, much more. I've never heard of Hawking and a 'God cell'.
20

You’re right, this is too deep for me. What got me in the article was the sentence. “The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence." The key word was “eminence". From what I see the human factor is still alive and well in the science world. Just look at Climate Change. Couldn’t fix the errors in Global Warming so change the name to Climate Change? What’s is in most people’s mind as the meaning of what climate change is? Weather. Then claim that people deny weather. I do not know one person on earth that will deny weather. Don’t even know how one would go about denying weather. That to me is poor science and the term “Climate Change" itself is a human and not a scientific factor. And in the field of history. If you want a profession in history for example, it is all about the eminence of institutions. The institutions are sometimes connected to the churches or states. If that sentence were true then science would not have to be rewritten so many times.
The God cell is just a name use for the creation of life. Steven Hawking uses the term god particle. The particle is the part that makes the cell come to life. I have not been following Hawking for some time now. But the latest news headlines is that this god particle if not handled right could destroy the universe.
Thanks for your posting. They have been real helpful to me. I can see now that I did not pick up on the “authority" part.