They really haven't. The establishment has spent decades denouncing the concept of the aether, off the back of a single experiment, only to come full circle and create their own imitation of the original concept under the guide of the Higg's field. A concept of mass that is so ridiculously circular in logic that even a child can comprehend it.
And all it took was billions of dollars creating a giant machine that operates at a level that only mathematical theory can interpolate, and that has no tangible connection to reality what so ever. And like so many other concepts in institutional science it can not be disproven because the theory necessitates machinery that only the establishment has access to. How convenient.
This holds weight, until they inevitably show their hand. And deGrasse did that when he disparaged Nikola Tesla's wireless electricity system (Wardenclyffe), trying to pass it off as a static electricity generator, showing quite clearly that deGrasse was talking out of his ass. None of these 'entertainers' are open minded at all, they are just gatekeepers for the established order. They are the last type of person you want representing science.
We don't need cheerleaders. Science held its own until it became institutionalized. It was literally magical from the 18th and into the early 19th century.
See, now you're aligning yourself there with what I have been saying. This is the problem, these sciences are so far off the deep end now in terms of an actual tangible relation to reality that they are essentially religious beliefs handed down from the priesthood (institutions).
Nikola Tesla called it, a century ago, when he lamented that scientists were substituting experiments for mathematics. Divorcing ourselves from reality. The concept structure we have created is circular, can you not see that? At either end of the scale (universe/astrophysics, atomic/particle physics) both domains now rely solely on mathematics to keep the thing plugged together.
Luckily with astrophysics we can at least see things in space, unlike the haze of the atomic level. And time after time, we see things in space that continue to shatter the standard model we have created, and again and again they have to resort to untested metaphysical nonsense (dark matter/energy) in order to plug up the gaping holes in the theory.
Look man, I get it, you love science. I love science too. But what we have today is not true science. It is institutional science, science with an agenda, science by money and politics. Where we have ended up, whether it is accidental or malign, who can say. But it is crystal clear that the picture that we've painted is completely false, and certain parties wish to keep the picture they've created and are afraid to concede it is wrong.
The transition from the concept of the aether to the acceptance of the Higgs field reflects the natural evolution of scientific understanding, not a regressive return to discarded ideas. The aether was a theoretical substance once thought necessary for the propagation of electromagnetic waves, a concept that was dispelled by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887. The Higgs field, on the other hand, is a fundamental field posited by the Standard Model of particle physics, essential for explaining the origin of mass in elementary particles. The development of such theories is based on cumulative evidence and experimentation, not mere philosophical or financial whims. The discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider in 2012 provided empirical support to this theoretical framework, demonstrating the tangible progression of theoretical physics into confirmable reality.
The concern that theories like those tested in the Large Hadron Collider are beyond lay verification and heavily reliant on expensive, exclusive equipment is understandable. However, these experiments require conditions that are not naturally occurring on Earth, necessitating such complex machinery. Far from being a closed ecosystem, the results and data from these experiments are peer-reviewed and published, allowing the global scientific community to analyze, critique, and build upon them. This is a foundational principle of modern science—transparency and reproducibility, albeit within the constraints of available technology.
Criticism of public figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson for their comments on other scientific pioneers like Nikola Tesla highlights a broader debate about the role of popularizers of science. While it's vital that these figures communicate accurately, they also simplify complex concepts for general understanding. Missteps can occur, and constructive criticism helps ensure accountability. However, dismissing their overall contribution based on disagreements over specific interpretations risks undermining their valuable role in inspiring and educating the public.
The claim that science was more "magical" before becoming institutionalized romanticizes the past and overlooks the many ways in which science has advanced human knowledge and capability. The structured approach to modern science has yielded unprecedented advancements in medicine, technology, and our understanding of the universe. While institutional biases and funding can influence research priorities, the scientific method remains designed to challenge and refine understanding through evidence-based inquiry.
The criticism that modern science, especially fields like astrophysics and particle physics, has become akin to a religion with 'priesthoods' and dogmas is a serious philosophical and sociological assertion. It's true that all human endeavors, including science, can be influenced by human biases and socio-political contexts. However, science is uniquely self-correcting, with mechanisms such as peer review, replication studies, and continuous theoretical and experimental challenge. This process, while imperfect, strives to minimize individual biases and institutional influence.
The introduction of concepts like dark matter and dark energy is not a sign of desperation or fiction but an indication of science's responsiveness to observational anomalies. These concepts are placeholders for phenomena that current theories cannot yet explain, much like the term 'atom' was used before the electron was discovered. They represent the frontiers of our knowledge, not the failures of our science.
While it's crucial to maintain a critical perspective on the development and application of scientific knowledge, dismissing broad swathes of modern scientific endeavor as fundamentally flawed overlooks the empirical, methodological foundations of these fields. True scientific inquiry welcomes scrutiny and skepticism, but it also relies on an accurate understanding of its methods, aims, and achievements.
I can admit when I am wrong. He is a mainstream media darling and I fell for it.