[alancalverd]

Thus precipitating the death of the airline industry. Fact is that most problems are solvable and those that aren't entirely man-made (eg 737MAX auto trim, ATC-directed collisions....) pose an apparently acceptable level of risk.

I doubt that there would be much point in advising a student pilot that volcanic plumes can disable an airliner, and until it happened, I doubt that anyone had even thought about it.

Anyway, in response to neighbors complaining about aircraft noise, one local club has considered painting the trainers with the slogan "your cheap holiday started here".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I doubt that there would be much point in advising a student pilot that volcanic plumes can disable an airliner, and until it happened, I doubt that anyone had even thought about it.

There would be much  point for those who would experience it. When history is forgotten, it tends to repeat.

[alancalverd]

That history will not be forgotten, but there's little point in presenting it to the teenager who walks into a flying club and says "I'd like to be a pilot." Lesson 1 is about Bernoulli and credit cards, not vulcanology and windmill restarts.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

At the moment of its discovery, only one or a few person has a particular scientific knowledge. Only when it's communicated to wider audience, more people will know about it. And only when most people who are confident enough to express their opinions have accepted it, it becomes the mainstream.

Currently, my ideas only have limited attention. Only few people have known about them. Thus only few  can take a look into them and checked for their validity and correctness.
If only there were more people involved, the review process could have been faster. Any error could have been found sooner. And the problems they posed could be addressed and solved.

Perhaps the exposure problem can be solved by involving influential figures. Just like the cases with Bose and Ramanujan.

[alancalverd]

Whether an idea is "mainstream" has no relevance to science. Most people who are confident enough to express their opinions, say that the evil they do is justified by the wishes and demands of a deity, but they are wrong.

The value of your (or anyone's) ideas is the extent to which they explain the status quo and predict the outcome of the next experiment. Nothing to do with consensus, everything to do with demonstrability.

"Influential figures" includes scum like politicians and religious perverts. Not the sort of company a gentleman scientist would wish to keep.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Whether an idea is "mainstream" has no relevance to science.

They do, at least in the form of research funding. Non-mainstream ideas are less likely to get public funding.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The value of your (or anyone's) ideas is the extent to which they explain the status quo and predict the outcome of the next experiment. Nothing to do with consensus, everything to do with demonstrability.

Or the limitations of the status quo, or where they fail to explain some phenomena.
Demonstrability will eventually lead to consensus. But the exposure to the public determines how fast the consensus is reached.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Influential figures" includes scum like politicians and religious perverts. Not the sort of company a gentleman scientist would wish to keep.

Then just keep the "Influential figures" who are not scum.

[alancalverd]

Non-mainstream ideas are less likely to get public funding.

One of the great flaws of public funding, alas. Your brilliant hypothesis and amazingly simple experiment will be judged by lesser minds who prefer to sit on committees rather than get their hands dirty.

The way to get research funding is to find a private company with a problem whose solution will make money. 

[alancalverd]

Then just keep the "Influential figures" who are not scum.

Can you name one, who isn't a competitor in your own field?

[alancalverd]

Demonstrability will eventually lead to consensus.

There is an enforced consensus (the BBC is not allowed to broadcast any criticism) that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for climate change. It has cost the taxpayer billions in conferences, executive jet travel to said conferences, academic salaries and electricity bills, but has never been tested or demonstrated.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Did Covid affect global CO2 level ?
Did it affect global temperature?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Then just keep the "Influential figures" who are not scum.

Can you name one, who isn't a competitor in your own field?

Can't you distinguish between competitors and scums?

[alancalverd]

Did Covid affect global CO2 level ?

A little bit

Did it affect global temperature?

no. There is evidence of a local effect after 9/11 when the ban on air travel in the USA eliminated vapor trails, but the effect is limited to areas that are frequently devoid of natural cloud.

[alancalverd]

Can't you distinguish between competitors and scums?

Of course. Some of my competitors are entirely honorable but we are not in the business of politics, religion, banking, or climate "science".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Research is the last thing you should do when faced with a problem, and almost never worth doing in the absence of a problem.

The problems I found need to be solved by scientific research are those where commonly taught explanations give predictions that differ from experimental results.

[alancalverd]

Good. It has often been said that thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics. In my book, all the best science begins with an engineering problem (I include medicine as a branch of engineering!)

[Billy Fisher]

Totally get where you're coming from. Sharing the backstory really helps people connect with and understand the context behind your theories. It makes the discussion more engaging and relatable. Plus, personal insights and real-life experiences add a layer of depth that raw data alone can?t provide.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And never forget the Kruger-Dunning Principle. Ignorance breeds arrogance. 

That's why I opened my data to be discussed here. If my ideas survive scrutiny, then it's for their merits, not necessarily because of me personally. If they are truly universal, then sooner or later someone else will come up with the same conclusions.

Scientific breakthroughs by definition defy at least some aspects of established science.

The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder

Sabine Hossenfelder is a very popular science communicator who focuses largely on topics in physics. Although much of her content is effective and without issue, there is an undercurrent of anti-establishment rhetoric that has grown immensely as of late, and it is an enormous problem. Sabine is a not a charlatan like most of my other targets, and this is not a hit piece, but rather commentary on this aspect of her work and how it came to be. If you are a fan of hers, consider this perspective.

The difference from pseudo science is about which aspects of established science were wrong.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The crisis in physics is real: Science is failing

In which I apologize that my videos sometimes lack nuance and explain why I think we are witnessing the failure of science.