1
Just Chat! / Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?
« on: 14/02/2024 12:41:23 »
To be clear, everything I wrote here should not in any way change the validity of what I wrote in the other threads. They have their own independent justifications and falsifications.
I see the need for posting this thread to give a story behind what I've written in the other threads. Simply posting facts and figures do not seem enough to get people's attention and gain traction.
Usually, people are interested in something with story, especially when it's based on real life or related to their own lives.
Those who've read my threads in this forum may wonder, where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories, especially in physics, philosophy, and mathematics?
This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.
I'd like to prevent the spread of wild speculations and misinformation.\\
Like most people, I learned about science, technology, and philosophy from school/college, textbooks, and online sources, including wikipedia, quora, science web sites, and science forums.
To understand things, I tried to make a mental map of knowledge nodes with relationships among them. Once in a while I found something didn't add up. Something must be missing somewhere.
Sometimes the error turned out to be just a typo in textbooks or websites. Sometimes it was caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding in the part of authors of the article.
Often times, comparing different sources for the same topic can help identify where the errors come from, and how to fix it.
But there are times when I need to get a first-hand information by doing my own research and experiments.
In my workplace, I'm often involved in process safety review, feasibility studies for CAPEX and OPEX, also incident investigations, either as lead investigator or a contributor or adviser.
Those roles give me experience and train my neurons to understand things deeper than what's shown in the surface. The justification for the correct investigation is rather simple.
The error stops occurring, and no repeated case for a long duration of time.
I see the need for posting this thread to give a story behind what I've written in the other threads. Simply posting facts and figures do not seem enough to get people's attention and gain traction.
Usually, people are interested in something with story, especially when it's based on real life or related to their own lives.
Those who've read my threads in this forum may wonder, where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories, especially in physics, philosophy, and mathematics?
This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.
I'd like to prevent the spread of wild speculations and misinformation.\\
Like most people, I learned about science, technology, and philosophy from school/college, textbooks, and online sources, including wikipedia, quora, science web sites, and science forums.
To understand things, I tried to make a mental map of knowledge nodes with relationships among them. Once in a while I found something didn't add up. Something must be missing somewhere.
Sometimes the error turned out to be just a typo in textbooks or websites. Sometimes it was caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding in the part of authors of the article.
Often times, comparing different sources for the same topic can help identify where the errors come from, and how to fix it.
But there are times when I need to get a first-hand information by doing my own research and experiments.
In my workplace, I'm often involved in process safety review, feasibility studies for CAPEX and OPEX, also incident investigations, either as lead investigator or a contributor or adviser.
Those roles give me experience and train my neurons to understand things deeper than what's shown in the surface. The justification for the correct investigation is rather simple.
The error stops occurring, and no repeated case for a long duration of time.