- #1
Maarten Havinga
- 76
- 41
This thread is about whether strictly and always applying the forum rules allow for the whole picture of exact science. For every one of the rules there is a good scientific reason, the question is not about the quality of the rules but rather about the 'fruits' of applying them strictly.
I start this thread after moderators deleted my status update that gave a religiously tinted direction for renewal in science: to preserve what God says, which in exact science would mean firstly to nurture and cherish the lessons and related beliefs we have received from past great scientists such as Newton, Kepler and Einstein etc. It's up to you to judge whether that's too strict or not, though I admit I did not include the explanation in my status update. Secondly it would mean exploring creationist ideas, though that is with reason a more dubious affair.
As a MSc Mathematics that had to stop my university career afterwards - due to not high enough grades for a PhD (I had 2 studies, the 2nd in music) - I've noticed that in the modern scientific community the higher you come, the more you are supposed to know and respect certain results but also opinions - on the penalty of being respected less and other kinds of losing your influence. Thus it becomes for some part an ivory tower, unable to view itself from the outside and notice it if a part of the structure is built lop-sided.
The forum rules prohibit the discussion of original ideas outside literature and personal speculation. This means we may only explain and ask about the ivory tower's views. My opinion is therefore that applying these rules too strictly gives a restricted view of the reality of exact laws and phenomena. There are people outside academica having great original ideas, well balanced opinions and other valuable information about science or the scientific community. Of course we need to be able to refer to the rules for less qualitative opinions etc., but the exception strengthens the rule.
I want to defend this opinion with the speech of John Nash when he got his Nobel Prize, as pictured in the movie "A beautiful mind". He contemplates there that he has always believed in the cold logic of numbers. But after the diagnosis of schizophrenia, he had time and reason to ask "what truly is logic?" (viewing the ivory tower from outside). He had to conclude that the only true logic can be found in the relationships of love.
Translating exact science as science using logic much, this means we miss a part of it if we only allow - strictly defending the rules - for discussing literature. For the true logic has ways beyond that literature, beyond the scientific community's definition of what is logic. Thus I argue that always strictly adhering to the rules can get in the way of getting the right picture of the current state of exact science, for which end the rules were made.
To be clear: I do not advocate modification of the rules, I advocate less quickly jumping to enforcement of the rules.
I start this thread after moderators deleted my status update that gave a religiously tinted direction for renewal in science: to preserve what God says, which in exact science would mean firstly to nurture and cherish the lessons and related beliefs we have received from past great scientists such as Newton, Kepler and Einstein etc. It's up to you to judge whether that's too strict or not, though I admit I did not include the explanation in my status update. Secondly it would mean exploring creationist ideas, though that is with reason a more dubious affair.
As a MSc Mathematics that had to stop my university career afterwards - due to not high enough grades for a PhD (I had 2 studies, the 2nd in music) - I've noticed that in the modern scientific community the higher you come, the more you are supposed to know and respect certain results but also opinions - on the penalty of being respected less and other kinds of losing your influence. Thus it becomes for some part an ivory tower, unable to view itself from the outside and notice it if a part of the structure is built lop-sided.
The forum rules prohibit the discussion of original ideas outside literature and personal speculation. This means we may only explain and ask about the ivory tower's views. My opinion is therefore that applying these rules too strictly gives a restricted view of the reality of exact laws and phenomena. There are people outside academica having great original ideas, well balanced opinions and other valuable information about science or the scientific community. Of course we need to be able to refer to the rules for less qualitative opinions etc., but the exception strengthens the rule.
I want to defend this opinion with the speech of John Nash when he got his Nobel Prize, as pictured in the movie "A beautiful mind". He contemplates there that he has always believed in the cold logic of numbers. But after the diagnosis of schizophrenia, he had time and reason to ask "what truly is logic?" (viewing the ivory tower from outside). He had to conclude that the only true logic can be found in the relationships of love.
Translating exact science as science using logic much, this means we miss a part of it if we only allow - strictly defending the rules - for discussing literature. For the true logic has ways beyond that literature, beyond the scientific community's definition of what is logic. Thus I argue that always strictly adhering to the rules can get in the way of getting the right picture of the current state of exact science, for which end the rules were made.
To be clear: I do not advocate modification of the rules, I advocate less quickly jumping to enforcement of the rules.
