fisik@net lihat situs sponsor
        ISSN 2086-5325 Rabu, 22 November 2017  
 
LIPI

depan
database
database
artikel
fenomena
kegiatan
situs
info
kamus
publikasi
buku
prestasi
kontak
e-data

  » Penghargaan
  » Cara link
  » Mengenai kami
  Forum informasi berita :

pengumuman berita dana beasiswa lowongan teknis

Tanggapan atas pesan yang sedang dibaca bisa dilakukan melalui sarana pengiriman pesan yang ada di bagian bawah.

» Lihat daftar pesan di forum informasi berita
» Tulis pesan baru di forum informasi berita

  • PESAN DAN TANGGAPAN :

    Baca artikel ini sebelum melakukan klaim telah menemukan teori baru !!!
    Oleh : Suharyo Sumowidagdo
    Rabu, 10 September 2003 (18:54 WIB) dari IP 202.159.34.175

    Halo, saya menemukan artikel ini di homepage Warren Siegel.
    Komentar-komentar dan jawabannya rasanya benar-benar sesuai dengan
    kondisi fisikawan yang kadang harus menghadapi hoax. Read it, it's good
    for refreshing.

    N.B.:

    Jika ada yang merasa keberatan dengan statement Siegel tentang kitab
    suci dibawah, saya mengharap agar *tidak* *mendebat* di milis.
    Homepage asli tulisan ini saya tunjukkan di bawah. Pergilah ke web
    page tsb jika ada yang keberatan.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This page is dedicated to the many people who have occasionally
    drifted into my office, or sent me e-mail, eager to tell me about
    their new theory, which they know will turn all known physics on its
    head, even though they have only studied a small fraction of the
    latter. Generally, their comments are of 3 types:

    Attacks on established theories, based on distaste

    "I have proven that special relativity/quantum mechanics is wrong."
    You mean you did an experiment whose results disagree with the
    predictions of that theory? I didn't think so. You mean you proved it
    is self-contradictory? Not possible: Mathematically it's an elementary
    system, whose consistency is easy to check. You might as well claim
    that you can prove 2+2=5. (If you think you can do that, I'm willing
    to give you $2+$2 change for a $5 bill.) If you think you have found
    an inconsistency, you have probably made an assumption that is not
    implied by the theory. The fact is that these theories are not only
    well confirmed by experiment, but practical use is made of them every
    single day.

    "But it's obvious nonsense!"
    Then why does it work so well?

    "You're wrong!"
    That's just contradiction, not an argument.

    "BUT I HAVE PROVEN YOU WRONG!!"
    I already responded to that remark. And your caps lock key is stuck.
    (Maybe you should use a bigger font.)

    Promotion of a new unified theory, based on laziness and pride

    "My theory is prettier than the accepted one."
    Take it to an art dealer.

    "But Einstein/Feynman/... himself said that a theory must be pretty."
    You have already admitted you reject their theories.

    "My theory is better philosophically".
    Take it to church.

    "My theory agrees with the Bible/Quran/..."
    The author of that book has not written any papers with testable
    predictions. Furthermore, many of the claims of that book are disputed
    (quite violently) in most parts of the world.

    "My theory cures the common cold".
    Take it to the hospital. (You now qualify as a quack in the strictest
    sense.)

    "My theory makes more sense."
    What could possibly make more sense than to have a theory that agrees
    with nature, as determined by experiment?

    "Experimental verification isn't important in science."
    Look up "scientific method" in the dictionary.

    "My theory doesn't need any complicated math."
    Then how do you calculate anything? Science is not just knowing "what
    goes up must come down", but when and where it comes down.

    "Numbers aren't important in science."
    I guess you can throw out your clock.

    "How you explain something is more important than the numbers."
    Try that the next time you pay a bill.

    "My theory totally replaces the accepted one."
    Sorry, science doesn't work that way. Why do you think theories get
    accepted in the first place? Because scientists like them? No, because
    experiments verify them. And if some experiment agrees with some
    theory, that fact isn't changed by the invention of a new theory. The
    worst (or best) that can happen is that a new experiment disagrees
    with that theory, or an old experiment is done more accurately and is
    no longer in perfect agreement. Then the old theory is recognized as
    an approximation to the truth, that doesn't apply in all situations,
    or works only to so many decimal places. That's why classical
    mechanics is still taught in spite of quantum mechanics, and
    nonrelativistic mechanics is still taught in spite of special
    relativity, and your neighborhood butcher didn't throw away his scales
    when general relativity was discovered. And even if you or someone
    else eventually finds a replacement for special relativity or quantum
    mechanics, it will not change the fact that experiments have already
    proven nonrelativistic physics and classical physics to be wrong. You
    can only go forward, not backward; there is no nostalgia in physical
    law, it is not fashion.

    "I know my theory is right, without wasting my time learning the
    accepted theories."
    Science doesn't work that way, either. The fact is, the accepted
    theories already work, so why replace them? To start with, you have to
    reproduce all the correct results of the established theories: That
    means you first have to learn those theories, then check that your new
    theory can successfully reproduce their correct results. After all, if
    they're so wrong, why do they work so well? Secondly, to replace the
    old theories, you have to do better: Successfully predict something
    the old theories don't. In other words, your new theory has to agree
    with the old theories where they agree with experiment, and also agree
    with experiment where the old theory disagrees. But how would you know
    all that if you haven't studied the old theories in the first place?
    Would you read a movie review by someone who didn't see the movie?

    "I can explain all of physics, and I didn't need to go to graduate
    school."
    Would you allow yourself to be operated on by a surgeon who never went
    to med school? "Oh, yeah, all that medicine they teach in college is a
    waste of time. I learned surgery all by myself at home! Yeah, from the
    internet! Oh, lots of practice -- every Thanksgiving, when I carve the
    turkey! I even removed my own X-organ! That's what those stupid M.D.'s
    call a liver -- or is it a spleen? And I didn't even need an
    anesthetic! Now just hold still while I make the initial carv-, er,
    incision..."

    Personal attacks

    "That's what they told Galileo."
    I know Galileo, and you're no Galileo.

    "I knew you wouldn't listen, you scientists are too arrogant and
    closed-minded."
    Look in the mirror.

    "You have to spend some time studying my theory."
    How much time did you spend getting an education in physics?

    "Why don't you spend some time telling me what's wrong with my
    theory?"
    Why don't you take a course? That's what they're for: So that many
    people can be taught the same thing at the same time, making more
    efficient use of the instructor's time. The instructor's office hours
    are for those who already took their own time studying the course
    material.

    "I spend my time helping humanity, you waste your time on garbage."
    No, you waste your time trying to convince people who know their
    theories work that they don't, when all the evidence is in their
    favor. I only spend part of my time on garbage, and only when it
    contacts me first.

    "You @@$ *#"
    You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  • TULIS TANGGAPAN BARU :

    PERHATIAN : Semua data terminal yang mengakses otomatis dicatat sebagai arsip serta untuk kenyamanan bersama.

    judul :
    penulis : username :     password :
    isi :

    » kirim ke teman
    » versi cetak
    » berbagi ke Facebook
    » berbagi ke Twitter
    » markah halaman ini

  •  

    PERHATIAN : fisik@net berusaha memberikan informasi seakurat mungkin, namun tidak bisa menjamin tidak terjadi kesalahan baik disengaja maupun tidak. Segala akibat dari pemakaian sarana ini merupakan tanggung-jawab pemakai !
    - sejak 17 Agustus 2000 -
      Dikelola oleh TGJ LIPI Hak Cipta © 2000-2017 LIPI