ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Illogical Logicians

Updated on May 1, 2010

Science is supposed to be rational, logical, precise, measurable, accurate, unchanging, eternal etc. But is it?Well, is science really scientific? Or does it at, times, try to evade answers? Or, worse still, confuse when it cannot convince? Let’s try to sample some of these “unscientific Truths”.

- As Max Planck & many other scientists would like us to believe, certain things behave like a particle as well as a wave!! That’s something akin to saying a cricket ball behaves like a sausage at times! Huh! Dual nature indeed!

- Now, another gem, something can be at position X when we do not look at it, however, when we look at it, it may not be at position X simply because we look at it. That’s what Heisenberg wants us to believe! Isn’t it laughable? Going a step further, the men of science want us to believe that a state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must accurately be defined, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles depending on the accuracy required!

- All objects in the universe try to exert invisible forces on each other. Why? Just because they exist, silly. So everyone & everything exerts a “Force” on everything else, just because, as mentioned, they exist! Where I like it or not, the car I am about to drive is exerting a pull ( a physical pull, not a psychological one !) as is the faintest of the star that is tucked somewhere in heavens many, many light years away. (Ah, that reminds me, my scientist friends also claim that I can see many stars that have not existed for the last millions of years! But then, that’s a different story, I do not want to mix things up)

- All seemingly stable & inert objects like the rock – solid rocks, stones, and diamonds actually are made up of lots & lots of free space with tiny particles always dancing around incessantly. So the boulder on the fringes of the road you also see on your weekly trek might have been lying static for ages, but, in essence, its particles are in perpetual motion!

- Believe it or not, Einstein wants us to believe past is present & present is future! What you think is past may actually be future, if you manage to think, err, relatively differently! In fact the greatest scientist of the world would also like us to believe that before a certain period of time, Time did not exist! Doesn’t that beat all the theories! I stop here on this point since it is meaningless to argue on this any further.

- Take a breath for some more stuff. To take things to an illogical extreme , Einstein & some of his fellow nit-wits tend to believe that there is no preferred viewpoint and no preferred reference frame. If a meter long stick is observed by two observers with different motions, each observer will have a DIFFERENT dimension of the stick & each would be RIGHT!!

C’mon, gives us break! Do these scientists really think that the laity consists of duffers & buffoons?? Do they really want us to believe all this crap without a whimper? At times I doubt if men evolved from apes or was it other way round. For God’s sake, can someone tell these men & women of science to get back to their dingy labs, please?


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Shahid Bukhari profile image

      Shahid Bukhari 6 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

      The "Sausage" they see ... is the elongated state of their Convictions, based in Logics.

    • profile image

      soumyasrajan 7 years ago from Mumbai India and often in USA

      Is it not true that current style of Professional Science is basically based on three aspects-

      Using experimental data (only those type of experiments which can be repeated later for verifying) form some axioms (or hypothesis), which fit the data.

      Deduce from axioms by rational arguments statements (theorems etc.)

      if some of these theorems or deductions do not match with new experimental data -so often you start getting into problem try to change the original axioms so that new data +old ones are included together.

      I think Scientist essentially study only those subjects where these methods work (there are now newly evolving methods like probabilistic arguments or simulations but still may be extension of above ideas). It seems they do not care time being, even if this process may go to ad-infinitum.

      Are they not clear that this is what they do? If that is true I do not see why you feel so uncomfortable?