4 ms·

>> ...in no-name journals. > Foundations of Physics isn't a high-prestige, cutting-edge journal, but it's also not a crackpot journal. >> A non-respectable jo

• chmike 10y ago
  > What-the-fuck? Enigma? Hypothetico-deductive method? Organizes and feeds itself somewhat like a living being?!? No real physicist would dare to use such crazy crackpottery language for god's sake! Let me turn back to you your expression : What-the-fuck ? You judge the scientific validity and pertinence on the words he used ? You said you are are Physicist ? What kind of scientist are you ? When he started working on this subject the common wisdom among scientist was that Ball Lightning was nothing more than a popular belief. It is thus an enigma. Do you know what a Hypothetico-deductive method is ? I start to doubt. Let me try to explain. The problem with Ball lightning (as with UFOs) is that our main source of information are testimonies. You could then discard the data, as do wrongfully skeptics, by saying there is doubt on the data so we can't do anything with it. Some go as far as using this uncertainty to justify the REJECTION of possible validity of the phenomenon while it is only UNKNOWN. This is a logical fallacy. If all scientists behaved like that in the past we would still be building our tools today by cutting flint. The Hypothetico-deductive method boils down to say "Ok I don't know if its real or not, but let's assume its real. What can we deduce from the data." The resulting deductions can lead us to elaborate a theory explaining the phenomenon that can then be tested. If the test fails, the theory is proven incorrect, but the reality of the phenomenon is still unknown. If the test succeed, the theory is proven valid and becomes a strong candidate for the explanation. This method is common science and led to the most remarkable breakthrough in our understanding of the universe we live in. Where is the crack-pottery in referring to that method ? > Unless you're ready to commit career-suicide, you can't talk about such bullshit in a peer-reviewed paper, physics conference, proceedings, books, even in a press release or social media. So you explain by yourself why he didn't manage to publish on this subject in high ranked scientific journal. But have you considered why it can't be done? No one publishes on these subjects in scientific journals because no one publishes on these subjects on scientific journals. No Editor wants to risk the credibility of his journal regardless of the scientific quality of the work. You claim it's bullshit but on what base ? What are your arguments ? It's bullshit because no peer review article publishes an article on this subject ? Because of the words he use ? Your arguments are bullshit. Nothing else. Oh! Maybe you mean it must be crack-pottery because a scientist would ruin his career by publishing such work even on social media. Prof. Meessen is a true scientist not someone who tries to make a career in science. He work on research topic he believes he can provide a significant added value to it because this is the most valuable for humanity. People like you who are trying to discredit his work on the base you use are a shame for science (supposing you are really a physicist). If all scientists behaved like you the theory of relativity would never have been published and we would still be teaching classic mechanics. The poorness of your argumentation say it all. I don't believe a single second that you are a scientist. Having a diploma in science doesn't make you a true scientist.
• kragen 10y ago
  > If you put every English sentence (which is screaming crazy ---mind you, and single one of those bullshit will cost an actual physicist his credibility) I agree that his English is not very good. But that's because it's badly translated from French. The French versions are perfectly coherent. Your English is better than his, but it's not very good either; for example, "bullshit" is not plural. Hopefully nobody will declare you to be a "charlatan" or a "crackpot" as a result. Surprisingly, the actual paper of his that I read is mostly lacking such gross errors. > We're talking about a guy who says apparitions of sun are related to altered states of conscience! "Conscience" here is a mistranslation of the French "conscience", which means "consciousness". Also, he's not talking about "apparitions of sun" — that's your invention. He said "apparitions", which are cases where a Catholic believes they have seen the Virgin Mary. (Note that he is a professor at a Catholic university.) Sometimes these are accompanied by reports of bizarre, stereotyped changes in appearance of the sun, known as "miracles of the sun". His overall conclusion, from the paper, is as follows: > [A]pparitions and miracles of the sun cannot be taken at face value. There are natural mechanisms that can explain them, but they are so unusual that we were not aware of them. Miracles of the sun result from neurophysiological processes in our eyes and visual cortex, while apparitions involve more complex processes in our mind's brain. He specifically considers and rejects the possibility of a supernatural or extraterrestrial origin for these phenomena, although those explanations are popular. He goes into some detail in the paper about explanations from neuroscience, psychology, and meteorology. You're right that it isn't physics to investigate why people might see colored lights, grey discs, or other things that aren't there. But you are wrong to say that it isn't science.