[allan marsh (OP)]

What is the probability that senior expert replies are correct.

Come on folk even experts can smile?

[alancalverd]

Very low. Especially when they talk about consensus.

[Bill S]

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by correct?

[yor_on]

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder they say
Maybe it's so with expert opinions too?

A pinch of salt may be useful at times though.

[PmbPhy]

What is the probability that senior expert replies are correct.

Impossible to say. But I'd say that it's very high.

[allan marsh (OP)]

What's the probability of PmbPhy agreeing with. Alancalverd

Let's call it a draw and say 50:50

I don't know what that says about us?

[PmbPhy]

What's the probability of PmbPhy agreeing with. Alancalverd

Let's call it a draw and say 50:50

I don't know what that says about us?

You do me a disservice. I agree with people based on whether they're correct on a point and not on who they are.

[Ethos_]

I agree with people based on whether they're correct on a point and not on who they are.

And that is exactly how it should be Pete. Facts about reality can be agreed upon by those who've studied the details. A common consensus should in most cases be arrived at where those with the knowledge can find agreement. There remain however, many things we simply don't understand enough yet to form detailed opinions. In such cases, there is always room for speculation.

[PmbPhy]

What's the probability of PmbPhy agreeing with. Alancalverd

Why did you ask this anyway? The question on the thread is What is the probability that senior expert replies are correct. Alan is not a senior expert on any topic that I post on that I'm aware of. He claims to be a medical physicist and I don't post on that subject. That subject deals a lot with nuclear physics and that subject rarely comes up. When it does I'll post only when I know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Bill S]

Come on folk even experts can smile?

Unfortunately, the second part of the OP seems to have been forgotten.

[jeffreyH]

It is better that people don't agree. If they did nothing would change. Different opinions move things forward. It has to be remembered that both Pete and Alan put a lot of effort in to try to help people when they are wrong. Even when the people they try to help just won't listen. It may be some time later those posters realize their mistakes and eventually come to an understanding. Some may never change. It is difficult for some people to admit publicly that they have made silly errors. They feel challenged rather than just taking the advice on board. I doubt if I would have that much patience.

[JohnDuffield]

You do me a disservice. I agree with people based on whether they're correct on a point and not on who they are.

No you don't. On post #35 of this thread you said I was wrong when I said a gravitational field doesn't add energy to a descending photon, or remove energy from an ascending photon. Then you referred to your own article which ends up saying the total energy of a photon moving through a gravitational field is constant. 

[PmbPhy]

No you don't.

Yes I do.

On post #35 of ...you said I was wrong when I said a gravitational field doesn't add energy to a descending photon, or remove energy from an ascending photon.

My apologies. I mistook what I read. I thought that you were saying that a g-field "does" add energy etc. I have a slight problem with Dyslexia which means that on very rare occasions I'll misread something like that. Sorry.

Never let it be said that I don't correct my mistakes as soon as I recognize that I make them. And no, John. This doesn't mean that all the other mistakes you've made that I pointed out must therefore be correct. Seems like that'd be the first thing you'd say after I'd post something like this.

[JohnDuffield]

My apologies. I mistook what I read. I thought that you were saying that a g-field "does" add energy etc. I have a slight problem with Dyslexia which means that on very rare occasions I'll misread something like that. Sorry.

Apology accepted.

And no, John. This doesn't mean that all the other mistakes you've made that I pointed out must therefore be correct.

What other mistakes? Again, you're suggesting I've made mistakes when I haven't. Not much of an apology, was it?

[Ethos_]

It is better that people don't agree. If they did nothing would change.

I agree that different views lead to more research and ultimately, new information. But when new facts present themselves, the practical and honest physicist will add this information to his inventory of known realities. If there were no standards of agreement, we would have anarchy within the scientific community. Without standards, progress within the technologies would suffer drastically. Agreement is also needed where evidence supports hypothesis leading to accepted theory. There will always be room at the fringes for crackpots as long as sound physics still survives at the center.

[PmbPhy]

What other mistakes? Again, you're suggesting I've made mistakes when I haven't.

That's always been your problem. Your grasp of physics is so absolutely horrible that you're totally incapable of understanding what your errors are when they're pointed out to you. For example; you've always misunderstood relativity and electrodynamics in the sense that you've claimed that there's no such thing as an electric or magnetic field, only an electromagnetic field. Such a belief demonstrates an extremely poor understanding of the subject. Yet when I explained your error to you you failed to understand it. That's why you keep claiming that you don't make errors, i.e. because no matter how many errors that you've made and people have pointed out to you, you're so terrible at physics that can't fathom the reasons they give you so you remain ignorant.

[dlorde]

Philosophically, I think there are probably only two certainties - the certainty of one's own existence, and the certainty that there are no other certainties. But I'm not certain.

[yor_on]

Neither am I dlorde
Unless I am of course? In which case I can't be, can I?

[alancalverd]

What's the probability of PmbPhy agreeing with. Alancalverd

Senior? Yes, very.

Expert? If it means having a keen nose and a strong distaste for bullshit, yes.

Ditto for Pete.

There's nothing in science about which anyone can disagree. However elementary or bizarre your hypothesis, if it doesn't explain everything you have observed, and correctly predict the next observation, it's wrong. If it does all the above, it's "good enough for clinical or engineering use", which is the limit of my interest.

[JohnDuffield]

That's always been your problem. Your grasp of physics is so absolutely horrible that you're totally incapable of understanding what your errors are when they're pointed out to you. For example; you've always misunderstood relativity and electrodynamics in the sense that you've claimed that there's no such thing as an electric or magnetic field, only an electromagnetic field. Such a belief demonstrates an extremely poor understanding of the subject. Yet when I explained your error to you you failed to understand it.

You haven't explained any such error to me. Perhaps I can draw your attention to Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism, epitomised by  this: "Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole — the electromagnetic field".

That's why you keep claiming that you don't make errors, i.e. because no matter how many errors that you've made and people have pointed out to you, you're so terrible at physics that can't fathom the reasons they give you so you remain ignorant.

You said I made a mistake when I didn't, then you said I've made lots of other mistakes when I haven't, and now you're also saying I'm terrible at physics, and I'm ignorant, and my grasp of physics is horrible. Perhaps the problem you have is more than just a slight problem with dyslexia.