Why Won’t You Look at My New Theory?
In any forum where science is discussed, there will always be people who have a great new personal theory and can’t understand why no one else is interested in it. Here at PF we have rules about this, but I want to look at the more general question of why there is apparently so little interest in such personal theories, independently of whatever rules a particular forum might have. Is it just because people are closed-minded, unwilling to consider new ideas? Or is there some more cogent reason?
Of course, personal theories cover a very wide range; but here I want to focus on a particular kind of personal theory, one which arises from the following scenario: A new observation or experimental result is reported that appears to be inconsistent with what we think we already know. Rather than pick on recent examples (of which there are plenty), I’ll give two examples from the history of Solar System astronomy in the 19th century, since the outcomes of these cases are both well established by now so they can serve as good test cases without raising anyone’s hackles. Here they are:
(1) In the 19th century the motion of the Moon appeared to be inconsistent with the predictions of Newtonian gravity–i.e., the Moon was observed in the sky at locations that were different from those predicted by Newtonian calculations from previous observations. The differences were small, but the calculations and observations were believed to be accurate enough to make them significant.
(2) In the 19th century the motion of Mercury also appeared to be inconsistent with the predictions of Newtonian gravity. Here, again, the differences were small, but it was believed that the calculations and observations were accurate enough that the discrepancy was significant.
The question then arises, what is the reason for the apparent inconsistency? There are basically two possibilities:
(A) The inconsistency is only apparent; it is because we haven’t worked out carefully enough the implications of what we already know. This was the case for the apparent anomaly in the motion of the Moon: it turned out that there were small perturbations due to the other planets that hadn’t been correctly calculated, and when the calculations were corrected, the discrepancy between the theory and observation went away. This means, of course, that people’s belief prior to this discovery, that the calculations of the Newtonian prediction were correct, was in error.
(B) The inconsistency is real; it is because there is some fundamentally new effect going on that our current theories don’t comprehend. This was the case for the anomaly in the motion of Mercury. It turned out that the current theory of gravity (Newton’s theory) was not correct. When Einstein replaced that theory with the general theory of relativity, one of the first predictions to be re-calculated based on the new theory was the motion of Mercury, and the correction to the Newtonian prediction due to general relativity brought the prediction into line with observation.
It is worth noting, by the way, that before GR was developed, scientists considered a more mundane explanation of the discrepancies in Mercury’s orbit: that there might be a small planet inside the orbit of Mercury that was perturbing its motion just enough to account for the discrepancy. But such a planet was never observed despite increasingly sensitive attempts to do so, and this possibility had been rejected by the time Einstein began working on GR.
I don’t think any reasonable person would disagree that, in principle, (A) and (B) above are both valid possibilities in any situation of the general type we are discussing. However, I think there is a vast disagreement between scientists and non-scientists about the relative frequency of occurrence of (A) and (B). Many nonscientists seem to believe that situations of type (B), where a fundamentally new effect is there and the theory has to be modified to account for it, are common in science; whereas all good scientists know that in fact, almost all situations turn out to be of type (A), where the theory is fundamentally correct but its implications haven’t been calculated accurately enough. This is not because scientists are lazy or incompetent: it’s because calculating the predictions of a known theory is not a cookie-cutter mechanical process but a separate intellectual effort in its own right, and it is subject to the same kinds of errors as any other theoretical efforts.
I don’t know exactly why so many nonscientists seem to believe that type (B) situations are vastly more common than they actually are, but I can think of several possible reasons:
(1) Type (B) situations are far more exciting, so historians of science tend to focus on them, while the vastly more common type (A) situations are left out of popular accounts. So the nonscientist’s erroneous belief about the frequency of type (B) situations is due to a straightforward sampling bias.
(2) Type (B) situations, because they intrinsically involve the overthrow of some part of an accepted theory and its replacement with a new theory, always involve a dynamic of resistance by the scientific community to the new theory. Scientists understand that this resistance, even to theories that ultimately win out, is rational, and a necessary part of science; but nonscientists just focus on the underdog fighting against the establishment because it feeds their pet beliefs about such situations. So nonscientists’ erroneous belief that type (B) situations are common is just a special case of the general belief (which is also erroneous) that underdogs fighting establishments are usually right.
(3) Type (B) situations appear to nonscientists to hold out the hope that, in principle, anybody can overthrow an accepted scientific theory. Newton was a lowly college student when he came up with his laws of motion and his theory of gravity. Einstein was a patent office clerk who had failed to obtain an academic job when he published his famous papers on special relativity and quantum theory. Nonscientists look at these examples and draw the (erroneous) conclusion that you don’t need to actually know anything about the established theories in order to overthrow them; you don’t need to go through all the bothersome stuff that members of the scientific establishment do, like taking classes, getting degrees, doing research, publishing papers, going through peer review, etc. Just come up with a great new idea and you’re set.
Scientists, though, understand that Newton, Einstein, and the other scientists who found themselves in real type (B) situations did do all that stuff–they did learn the established theories inside and out before they tried to overthrow them. They did their “homework” in an unconventional way, but they still did it. So nonscientists’ erroneous belief that type (B) situations are common is due to their erroneous belief that you can come up with a new scientific theory that works, without actually having to do the work involved in understanding what is currently known.
Of these possibilities, the third would appear to be the one most likely to spawn personal theories of the kind I referred to at the top of this article. And, conveniently, it also offers an explanation of why others are so seldom interested: because the obvious counterpoint to the view that anybody can overthrow an accepted scientific theory is to go too far in the other direction and believe that only professional scientists–those with degrees or other credentials, etc.–can come up with a valid scientific theory. So of course any random person posting on an internet forum can’t possibly have a valid theory.
But the fact that this heuristic works 99.9999% of the time still does not make it right. Unfortunately, I think a large part of the reason it is so often adopted is that professional scientists themselves promote it–wittingly or unwittingly. For there is a flip side to the observation that nonscientists often come up with personal theories that nobody listens to: the observation that professional scientists, when talking to nonscientists, often fail to distinguish the varying levels of confidence we have in different parts of science, and often present science in a way that encourages people to say “Oh, wow!” and accept whatever they are told on the authority of the scientist, rather than to think critically and try to build an understanding of their own. This is why PF also has rules about acceptable sources: because even scientists can’t always be trusted to fairly represent science. At least in a peer-reviewed paper, there are other experts looking who can call them on it if they go too far afield (though admittedly that doesn’t always work either).
I’ve painted a fairly gloomy picture in this article, but please bear in mind that I’m focusing here on something that only makes up a small fraction of all the posts on PF. Most discussions here don’t raise either of the issues I describe above. But if you’re tempted to post about your personal theory, or if you’re tempted to ask a question based on a pop-science source, it might be worth taking some time out to consider.
- Completed Educational Background: MIT Master’s
- Favorite Area of Science: Relativity
[QUOTE=”thefurlong, post: 5441705, member: 559654″]The problem is that these days, going into scientific research is prohibitively expensive for many people (like me), especially if you’re already paying off debts from your first time in school. I would love to spend all of my time studying physics rather than doing these intellectually non-stimulating computer programming tasks that I am paid to do every day. However, I would also prefer not to add $80k more debt to the debt I already have, and I certainly don’t want to find myself living in poverty as a graduate student.[/QUOTE]
This is not a modern problem. The fact that performing scientific research is too expensive for the average person (or generates too little income to live off of) has been going on for thousands of years.
[QUOTE=”thefurlong, post: 5441705, member: 559654″]The fact is that the troglodytes running my country have decided that encouraging people to go into scientific research is not a priority. Additionally, the prospect of doing university research is less than enticing at this point, given that university boards think that investing in frequent, safe, results is way more important than investing in attempts to truly innovate. These aspects of research create a fairly imposing barrier to entry for many people.[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how any of this is an “imposing barrier to entry”. It looks more like a restriction of choices, not a barrier.
[QUOTE=”thefurlong, post: 5441705, member: 559654″]How many innovators are there in this world who have fallen by the wayside because their true interest lies in making fundamental progress rather than incremental progress? How many others never reached their full potential because, in order to actually obtain knowledge, they have to sacrifice their financial well-being by doing the financial equivalent of purchasing a car every year for 4 years, or more.[/QUOTE]
For the first sentence, I would say relatively few. For the second, I would agree that this is a general problem with college education, at least here in the US. Plenty of people are unable to obtain a college education because they lack either the money to pay for school, or the money to support themselves while attending school, both of which prevent them from getting a college education or make it extremely difficult or slow.
[QUOTE=”thefurlong, post: 5441705, member: 559654″]And heaven forbid they have a learning disability, which is just mild enough not to count as debilitating according to some arbitrary benchmark, but just severe enough to negatively affect their academic performance, which, in turn, affects the prestige of the institution that accepts them for research?[/QUOTE]
I don’t think learning disabilities and their effect on a person or a college really fits into the topic of this thread.
[quote=”sophiecentaur, post: 5437467″][QUOTE=”twiz_, post: 5437170, member: 560344″]This is a ridiculous question. There are so many reasons not to, all specific to different people.[/QUOTE]
Maybe. But no one can expect to get to a good stage of understanding by superficial ‘reading round’ on the Internet and then submitting whacky ideas on discussion forums. There are alternatives to ‘Institutions’ but a Science Forum is certainly not sufficient.
I would change your description of “different people” to “exceptional and unusually gifted people”. Would you expect to become a World Class Footballer from kicking a ball around on your own?[/quote]The problem is that these days, going into scientific research is prohibitively expensive for many people (like me), especially if you’re already paying off debts from your first time in school. I would love to spend all of my time studying physics rather than doing these intellectually non-stimulating computer programming tasks that I am paid to do every day. However, I would also prefer not to add $80k more debt to the debt I already have, and I certainly don’t want to find myself living in poverty as a graduate student.
The fact is that the troglodytes running my country have decided that encouraging people to go into scientific research is not a priority. Additionally, the prospect of doing university research is less than enticing at this point, given that university boards think that investing in frequent, safe, results is way more important than investing in attempts to truly innovate. These aspects of research create a fairly imposing barrier to entry for many people.
How many innovators are there in this world who have fallen by the wayside because their true interest lies in making fundamental progress rather than incremental progress? How many others never reached their full potential because, in order to actually obtain knowledge, they have to sacrifice their financial well-being by doing the financial equivalent of purchasing a car every year for 4 years, or more.
And heaven forbid they have a learning disability, which is just mild enough not to count as debilitating according to some arbitrary benchmark, but just severe enough to negatively affect their academic performance, which, in turn, affects the prestige of the institution that accepts them for research?
[USER=257926]@fundamentally[/USER]: Does your model make any observable predictions? If it does not, it is useless.
[QUOTE=”fundamentally, post: 5441340, member: 257926″]Still some notions such as elementary particles and photons are full of contradictions.[/QUOTE]Which contradictions do you see in quantum field theory? It is a nice theory that makes excellent predictions – better than one part in a trillion at places where our tests are precise enough.
The LHC is not a theoretical physicist. It will never produce a theory. But it does produce measurements, which theories have to agree with – and ideally they should be able to predict the measurement results in advance. Theories without experiments are useless.
[QUOTE=”Vanadium 50, post: 5441478, member: 110252″]If people don’t want to go down this path,[/QUOTE]
If they don’t want to go through this path then where are they to start from? No one can start from scratch and they must get their initial opinions from somewhere. If it’s a non-standard start then it’s very likely that the path will not have ‘converged’ with a viable finish. It’s very common on Forums (though not so common on PF) for people to get petulant and throw a wobbler when their nonsense is not taken seriously. They identify themselves with Tesla (mostly). Enough said.
At least, the mission statement of PF is quite unequivocal about this so they cannot really complain. You can’t join a Rugby club and play American Football; it’s different rules.
[QUOTE=”ComplexVar89, post: 5441352, member: 487510″]I’d go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one [I]has[/I] to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory.[/QUOTE]
The “traditional path” is to learn about the field, and that includes what has gone before, and it includes what people are working on now. If people don’t want to go down this path, [I]shouldn’t[/I] the field be discriminatory?
[QUOTE=”houlahound, post: 5441390, member: 551046″]I believe a lot of money goes into the LHC by people looking to get a financial return from spin off’s, IMO. The science is secondary.[/QUOTE]
Things have always been that way. Throughout history, Scientists have relied on patrons – private or state. Some organisations run research departments which do ‘blue skies’ work and which produce nothing useful from some projects. Universities exist because of income from commercial firms. When it comes to getting funding, there can be as much skill in spinning the right tale as in carrying out the experiments.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5440976, member: 197831″]More specifically, we can get tired of answering questions that have already been answered, either in FAQs here on PF or on other sites that we’ve linked to already numerous times. We do this in our free time, so we can’t provide the same level of pedagogy that a school or a textbook does.
I would say the fundamental issue here is not reproducibility per se, but calling something “science” when it hasn’t been reproduced (or more generally, when it hasn’t been given the quality control checks that should be done before anything gets to be called “science”).
Most definitely. And scientists themselves are often at fault, for not being up front and explicit about the level of confidence in various results, so that the lay public sees only two categories, “science” and “not science”, instead of a spectrum of varying levels of confidence. So when something the public thought was “science” turns out to be wrong, the public’s reaction is to assume that other stuff that was categorized as “science” must really be “not science” as well, instead of to recognize that the original claim didn’t have very high confidence to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Re: 1st point- Trust me I understand. And it’s obvious many such as yourself devote a good deal of time to PF to promote interest in and understanding of physics. I have noted posts where, even to me, the OP seems , almost willfully, to not understand.
Re- Second- Absolutely. The overwhelming majority of science advances over time and only by consensus. Unfortunately most of the lay public fails to understand this.
[QUOTE=”fundamentally, post: 5441340, member: 257926″]…
If the full consequence of the discovery of the orthomodular lattice is accepted, then it becomes possible to dive much deeper into the foundations of physics than experiments such as the LHC can bring us…. .[/QUOTE]
I believe a lot of money goes into the LHC by people looking to get a financial return from spin off’s, IMO. The science is secondary.
[QUOTE=”ComplexVar89, post: 5441352, member: 487510″]
[SIZE=4]Should we be cast aside? After all, isolation is one of the surest paths to the echo-chamber effect, where one can’t even see that they’re wrong, because there’s no one qualified around to tell them so.
[/SIZE]
I’d go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one [I]has[/I] to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory. [/QUOTE]
A tiny bit? No, it is pretty discriminatory — and on purpose. Engineering is even more so. In certain disciplines/job types in most states you are [B]required by law[/B] to have a 4-year degree in engineering and a state issued license to even call yourself an “engineer” (there are no such formal rules in research sciences as far as I know). Engineering used to be a [B]trade [/B]and until fairly recently anyone could work for an engineer as an apprentice and then take the professional engineer exam. Not anymore.
The stakes are higher with engineering. If a scientific paper turns out to be wrong, it is’t generally that big of a deal, whereas mistakes in certain engineering disciplines can kill people. As you might expect, doctors also have licensing requirements…
[QUOTE=”Greg Bernhardt, post: 5437016, member: 1″]Is it wrong to say, if you are [B]this[/B] interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you’d need?[/QUOTE]
Not that I have any designs on coming up with an Earth-shattering theory–I’m not arrogant enough to think I’m that brilliant, no matter how much study I ever do. Science generally doesn’t work like that, anyway. Still this comment gives me pause. Sometimes, it’s simply not possible for one to attend an institution that serves one’s needs in that respect–ever. Some limitations can never be surmounted, but must be [I]worked around[/I]. Mine aren’t intellectual, but social and emotional, combined with just enough impulsive shooting myself in the foot when I was younger, (while not even knowing what was wrong with me.)
[SIZE=4]The self-imposed fear one may learn the material incorrectly or have critical holes in their knowledge can be crippling in that case, especially if they know no one that matters will ever take them seriously, no matter that their mindset is the antithesis of a crackpot’s. They’d be happy to toil away in relative obscurity the rest of their life just to have the chance to see things at the “bleeding edge” of things and maybe contribute a little [/SIZE]back.
[SIZE=4]
Should we be cast aside? After all, isolation is one of the surest paths to the echo-chamber effect, where one can’t even see that they’re wrong, because there’s no one qualified around to tell them so.
[/SIZE]
I’d go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one [I]has[/I] to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory. You never know–there might be some people out there with one (or more) of the “invisible disabilities” who could contribute under the right circumstances.
I don’t know, maybe what I’m saying is that maybe the scientific community could prop the door open a little for those of us who are passionate about science and are willing to work to get in but must take a different route to get there.
John Baez, one of the contributors to this discussion wrote an article “Division algebras and quantum theory” . It is very fundamental and important to those that want to understand the foundations of physical reality or want to deliberate about that. Not many people will understand the importance of this paper because most scientist are applying their capabilities for supporting applied science that brings their regular earnings. This happened to me also. Since I am retired I have more time free for thinking deep about the foundations of physical reality and that free time appears to be an important resource. Already in the sixties during my studies I became suspicious about the direction that current physics has taken. Some leading physicists guided the direction that quantum physics took and that guidance was accepted without much criticism. Still some notions such as elementary particles and photons are full of contradictions. Thus something must be wrong with our knowledge of the deep foundations of physics. My conviction is that the discovery of Garret Birkhoff and John von Neumann indeed introduced a suitable foundation of physical reality and that this foundation is built into physical reality including the concept of the Hilbert space. This however sins strongly against the so called scientific method that most physicists still use as a defense that covers the actual reason of their attitude.
If the full consequence of the discovery of the orthomodular lattice is accepted, then it becomes possible to dive much deeper into the foundations of physics than experiments such as the LHC can bring us. The main problem for foundation researchers is that applied physics flourishes well without the knowledge of the deep foundation of physical reality and that most scientist want to spend their resources in a more profitable way. My career was in high tech industry. I had no time to think about the orthomodular lattice and its consequence until I retired. Now I have that time and in 2011 my personal research project that investigates the foundation of physical reality got its current name “The Hilbert Book Model”. It uses a pure mathematical test model in order to see whether it can raise sufficient similarities with what we know from physical realty via experiments and more direct observation. The results of the project are so unorthodox and so controversial that I have little hope that my reports will ever pass peer-review. Also arXiv’s endorsement requirement will pose a significant barrier. That is why I publish on vixra. The current state of the project fulfills my own selfish needs. I think that I understand a lot more about the foundations of physical reality than most others do. My papers are free accessible and do not reserve copyrights. May be you will find the reverse bracket method, which I discovered, a useful tool. It helped me understand Hilbert spaces much better.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5440996, member: 197831″]I dunno, it sounds just like string theory to me. Except for the ostrich part…[/QUOTE]
My model predicts the ostrich and predicts its mass to fall within a narrow range of 10[SUP]6[/SUP] to 10[SUP]9[/SUP] kg. But I need a large machine to collide the smaller birds necessary to produce the ostrich.
[quote=”Borg, post: 5436673″]Nice article PeterDonis. I liked the reasons why nonscientists choose B over A. From the crackpot threads that I’ve seen, it often seems that the basic motivation for them is wanting to be famous for coming up with a new theory – regardless of how little sense their theory makes. Some of them do go to great lengths to ‘prove’ themselves but they really don’t know even the basics.[/quote]I do agree. Intentions definitely have influence on our understandings.
[QUOTE=”houlahound, post: 5440990, member: 551046″]what do you guys think of my new cosmological model[/QUOTE]
I dunno, it sounds just like string theory to me. Except for the ostrich part…
what do you guys think of my new cosmological model;
in the 11’th dimension when dimensions 0 thru 11 were still potentialities the giant ostrich laid a cosmic egg, the egg smashed and there was a rapid release of energy followed by a period of rapid expansion, the cosmic egg smash I predict would have caused gravitational waves. the cries of the ostrich can still be heard in the cosmic microwave background radiation.
I need some help with the maths, thoughts/opinions…
[QUOTE=”Charles Carter, post: 5440966, member: 585960″]I get the feeling mentors and others here are pretty tired of answering such questions,[/QUOTE]
More specifically, we can get tired of answering questions that have already been answered, either in FAQs here on PF or on other sites that we’ve linked to already numerous times. We do this in our free time, so we can’t provide the same level of pedagogy that a school or a textbook does.
[QUOTE=”Charles Carter, post: 5440966, member: 585960″]for a variety of reasons I believe Science to be suffering real credibility issues around reproducibility.[/QUOTE]
I would say the fundamental issue here is not reproducibility per se, but calling something “science” when it hasn’t been reproduced (or more generally, when it hasn’t been given the quality control checks that should be done before anything gets to be called “science”).
[QUOTE=”Charles Carter, post: 5440966, member: 585960″]Yet news, whether USA Today or Scientific American, are not terribly discerning.[/QUOTE]
Most definitely. And scientists themselves are often at fault, for not being up front and explicit about the level of confidence in various results, so that the lay public sees only two categories, “science” and “not science”, instead of a spectrum of varying levels of confidence. So when something the public thought was “science” turns out to be wrong, the public’s reaction is to assume that other stuff that was categorized as “science” must really be “not science” as well, instead of to recognize that the original claim didn’t have very high confidence to begin with.
Peter’s post, and Dale’s response, are reasonable and on the money. A couple of other issues come to mind, though.
A hobbyist only, I’ve been curious about STR for a while. Though rusty with calculus and linear algebra, I dug a little deeper than the strictly lay descriptions and have found works I can understand. But some conceptual matters I still find difficult. Turns out I’m not the only one and I get the feeling mentors and others here are pretty tired of answering such questions, which is fine. But the pat formulaic and dismissive answers have led me to realize PF is not a place to gain the better understanding I seek.
Secondly for a variety of reasons I believe Science to be suffering real credibility issues around reproducibility. This seems to involve softer sciences most, where statistical significance is relied on heavily , but I’ve seen comments that such issues involve physics as well. Yet news, whether USA Today or Scientific American, are not terribly discerning.
I think there’s a romantic element in rooting for the underdog; it certainly empowers anyone who identifies with being one. Similarly there is a feeling of superiority if you choose to advocate something that the majority does not, which I believe is the motivation behind conspiracy theories, for example.
[QUOTE=”Giovanniontheweb, post: 5440844, member: 590636″]The eagle can feel what you cannot and it can use it.[/QUOTE]
In other words, the eagle can do something that has an objective criterion of success: it can stay up in the air, rather than crash into the ground, which is what would happen if you or I tried to fly by flapping our arms. And if the eagle could understand our language, I don’t think he would be impressed by us insisting that we deserve a fair chance to fly even though we haven’t done anything to figure out how.
The objective criterion of success in science is that your theory’s predictions match experiments. Can you, without doing all the work of learning what we currently know, come up with a new theory that does that in some branch of science where we don’t currently have a good theory? If you can, you will be the first person ever in human history to do it. Good luck.
Never got that reply. Anyway, the “law” is a prediction of the theory.
[QUOTE=”mfb, post: 5440910, member: 405866″]My usual answer is something like “so is gravity. Do you expect us all to fall upwards tomorrow?”[/QUOTE]
The response usually given to me is that gravity is a law. Thus the confusion of what scientific theory and law are.
[QUOTE=”eltodesukane, post: 5440733, member: 394501″]How many times someone told me “evolution is just a theory” ..[/QUOTE]My usual answer is something like “so is gravity. Do you expect us all to fall upwards tomorrow?”
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5440687, member: 197831″]I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn’t be allowed to prevent that.
However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here’s the brutal truth: until you’ve done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does [I]not[/I] deserve a fair hearing. It doesn’t deserve a hearing at all.[/QUOTE]
Just science? Hey, I’ve never worked on a car before, but I have an idea of how to improve their performance. Mind if I try it out on your car?
Zz always uses the example of surgery.
Maybe perpetual motion machine “inventions” should insult me more as an engineer, but I would think scientists would be offended by the idea that “everyone deserves a fair hearing.” Getting a PhD isn’t just an excuse to spend 5 more years going to frat parties; it’s how you earn the privilege of that “hearing”.
I don’t get it, really: most people are unusually good at at least one thing, aren’t they? Wouldn’t anyone be offended by the idea that a novice could be better at it than them? Doesn’t everyone recognize that it is very unlikely to be possible?
[quote=”Wee-Lamm”]it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.[/quote]
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5440687, member: 197831″]I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn’t be allowed to prevent that.
However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here’s the brutal truth: until you’ve done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does [I]not[/I] deserve a fair hearing. It doesn’t deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn’t world enough and time to consider everybody’s idea. That’s why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.
In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea.[B] By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren’t knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for [I]your[/I] idea that you aren’t willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.[/B][/QUOTE]
No one is actually limiting anyone from thinking creatively. But there is no requirement for anyone to pay attention. As the thread title asks: “Why won’t you look at my new theory” … the answer is because no one HAS to … there needs to be a compelling argument or else it is likely a waste of time. The burden is on the individual to create a compelling argument, not on the audience to decipher a non-compelling argument.
[quote=”PeterDonis, post: 5440687″][QUOTE=”Wee-Lamm, post: 5440676, member: 577367″]it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.[/QUOTE]
I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn’t be allowed to prevent that.
However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here’s the brutal truth: until you’ve done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does [I]not[/I] deserve a fair hearing. It doesn’t deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn’t world enough and time to consider everybody’s idea. That’s why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.
In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren’t knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for [I]your[/I] idea that you aren’t willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.[/quote]can you fly as an eagle in the skyes, I guess you can’t unless sitting in 1st on a boeing. The eagle can feel what you cannot and it can use it. Being able to intuitevely understand differs from being able to use the lernt books to explain it, we can keep mixing it up if you like. I can be very good in repeating books yet it took me a while to feel the first page.
[QUOTE=”eltodesukane, post: 5440733, member: 394501″]How many times someone told me “evolution is just a theory” ..[/QUOTE]
As is their intelligence. :oldwink:
[QUOTE=”Greg Bernhardt, post: 5436775, member: 1″]This is absolutely true. The scientific definition and use of a theory is vastly different than what a layman thinks. To many layman, theory means a “guess” which could have conceivably come by way of day dreaming. It’s immensely frustrating.
There is also much confusion over the difference of a theory and a law.[/QUOTE]
How many times someone told me “evolution is just a theory” ..
[QUOTE=”Wee-Lamm, post: 5440676, member: 577367″]it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.[/QUOTE]
I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn’t be allowed to prevent that.
However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here’s the brutal truth: until you’ve done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does [I]not[/I] deserve a fair hearing. It doesn’t deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn’t world enough and time to consider everybody’s idea. That’s why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.
In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren’t knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for [I]your[/I] idea that you aren’t willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.
[QUOTE=”Greg Bernhardt, post: 5437016, member: 1″]Is it wrong to say, if you are [B]this[/B] interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you’d need?[/QUOTE]
Not entirely wrong, but it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically. Vetting out crackpot ideas, due to the lack of academic standing of the poser, may be preferred in the majority of cases but it should not be the only reason a notion is dismissed.
[QUOTE=”Greg Bernhardt, post: 5437016, member: 1″]Is it wrong to say, if you are [B]this[/B] interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you’d need?[/QUOTE]Can’t let this go – there are endless reasons, but they can all be simply summed up as follows: obligations considered to be a higher priority, or of equal (or greater) value.
I see. My apologies… I will exit stage left.
[QUOTE=”DianaHerberg, post: 5440626, member: 590111″]when inspiration strikes, we make posts on forums like these in the hopes that a scientist will see potential and develop it somehow[/QUOTE]
Whether or not this is likely to be a fruitful strategy in general (I don’t think it is), it isn’t here. PF’s purpose is to discuss already established science, not to try to discover new science.
Enjoyed the article… one further comment… there are those of us who were (at least somewhat) trained as scientists but moved to other fields, and when inspiration strikes, we make posts on forums like these in the hopes that a scientist will see potential and develop it somehow. I have no idea what percentage of those who post we are, but I’m included in that count.
[QUOTE=”klotza”]
One thing I’ve wondered: suppose somebody is not crazy, but is also not in the physics community, but has read a lot and think they have come up with something new. How do they get people to read it, to help them figure out whether their idea is right or wrong? Pretty much every serious online physics community has rules against this. They can write up a paper and submit it to a journal, but the role of peer review isn’t really to be a first-pass vet of peoples’ ideas, and a person not in the field will likely have papers rejected pretty quickly. So where should non-crazy people turn to, to get help?[/quote]
[QUOTE=”votingmachine, post: 5440589, member: 559673″]I would say that is laziness on the part of the idea generator. How does one distinguish the monkey that typed Shakespeare, if one is obliged to read millions of pages of gibberish? If a new idea has merit, then it should be possible for the individual generating it to show that it is right or wrong. If the generator of the idea cannot do that, then why is it an idea at all?
We all have ideas. Why should a physicist stop working on his, to help you with yours? What I found in graduate school in biochemistry was that everyone was willing to give you ideas to work on. And I freely suggested things for everyone else. But time and money are limited. I worked on my stuff and everyone else worked on their stuff.
I have never submitted a physics article, but I would have thought that an article which is clearly written and mathematically right would have a chance at getting accepted into some journal. Journals do have “big name” bias, but I think they also do an acceptable job of reviewing submissions.
There may be only one path for an individual with a legitimate contribution … do the work. Do the math. Learn the stuff that applies and apply it. It does suck that we live in an age when it takes so much to merely be proficient, and often much more time and money to actually show an idea is right or wrong. But it is what it is. You have to turn to yourself.[/QUOTE]
I would add that in biochemistry labs, good ideas are plentiful, and most often wrong. Often with difficult lab experiments to reach the end result that the idea is wrong.
There are still problems. Barbara McClintock had a PhD in botany, and absolutely stunning evidence of non-hereditary genetics, in her transposon work. Increasing skepticism led to her ceasing to publish in 1953. She won her Nobel in 1983. She was basically FIRED from the University of Missouri, where her work had only one important supporter (and he retired).
But she did the work herself. She developed a theory of mobile gene elements, and did the work, ad published the data and conclusions. Mobile genetic elements just was an unaccepted idea for a long time.
[QUOTE=”john baez, post: 5437142, member: 8778″]
If you say the gravitational force moves at the speed of light and obeys a “delayed” force law, conservation of angular momentum breaks down. In other words, suppose each a particle is attracted to where it would [I]see[/I] each other particle [I]was[/I], feeling an inverse square force. Then the particles are not attracted toward their current center of mass! This means angular momentum is not conserved. Orbits would spiral down.
[/QUOTE]
I will read the link later, but my intuition is boggled. I would think things would spiral away from each other. The time delay seems to spread the center of mass continuously (again, just intuition, not yet looking at the math).
[QUOTE=”klotza, post: 5437010, member: 569939″]One thing I’ve wondered: suppose somebody is not crazy, but is also not in the physics community, but has read a lot and think they have come up with something new. How do they get people to read it, to help them figure out whether their idea is right or wrong? Pretty much every serious online physics community has rules against this. They can write up a paper and submit it to a journal, but the role of peer review isn’t really to be a first-pass vet of peoples’ ideas, and a person not in the field will likely have papers rejected pretty quickly. So where should non-crazy people turn to, to get help?[/QUOTE]
I would say that is laziness on the part of the idea generator. How does one distinguish the monkey that typed Shakespeare, if one is obliged to read millions of pages of gibberish? If a new idea has merit, then it should be possible for the individual generating it to show that it is right or wrong. If the generator of the idea cannot do that, then why is it an idea at all?
We all have ideas. Why should a physicist stop working on his, to help you with yours? What I found in graduate school in biochemistry was that everyone was willing to give you ideas to work on. And I freely suggested things for everyone else. But time and money are limited. I worked on my stuff and everyone else worked on their stuff.
I have never submitted a physics article, but I would have thought that an article which is clearly written and mathematically right would have a chance at getting accepted into some journal. Journals do have “big name” bias, but I think they also do an acceptable job of reviewing submissions.
There may be only one path for an individual with a legitimate contribution … do the work. Do the math. Learn the stuff that applies and apply it. It does suck that we live in an age when it takes so much to merely be proficient, and often much more time and money to actually show an idea is right or wrong. But it is what it is. You have to turn to yourself.
[QUOTE=”Drakkith, post: 5440018, member: 272035″]I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner.[/QUOTE]
Sounds rather a ‘cross’ reaction for you, Drakkith. Don’t let ’em wind you up! :smile:
I really don’t t think it’s up to Scientists to defend themselves at all in this matter. Fact is that, without a Scientific Approach, we would still be kicking about in the pre-enlightenment dirt. The (many of them, brilliant) Engineers would not have the the use of the ideas that the Scientists have developed. But that’s a daft statement because the brilliant Engineers would have put their Scientist hats on and got there anyway. So Engineering and the Science are just descriptions of Processes and not the people involved.
I promised myself not to get involved with this thread again but here I am.
I would like to reemphasize that the vast majority of science is incremental. The new theories inevitably make use of decades and centuries of other scientists’ work.
[QUOTE=”Fervent Freyja, post: 5440174, member: 584792″]Many breakthroughs by one individual (there were far more groups in breakthroughs) came from those that struggled to learn in the same way as others typically do. Some didn’t have good or normal childhoods. They were deeply curious, focused, and driven. Devoted many years of their lives to asking a question.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. It could also be that these types of people just stand out in peoples minds more.
[QUOTE=”Drakkith, post: 5440160, member: 272035″]Even if these breakthroughs are concentrated in young scientists, I don’t agree that the main reason is because they aren’t set in their ways. I think there are plenty of other possibilities. Older scientists tend to take on supervisory or managerial roles for one thing. And I don’t necessarily agree that these breakthroughs are concentrated in younger scientists. But I admit I haven’t delved into the details of this subject before.[/QUOTE]
Many breakthroughs by one individual (there were far more groups in breakthroughs) came from those that struggled to learn in the same way as others typically do. Some didn’t have good or normal childhoods. They were deeply curious, focused, and driven. Devoted many years of their lives to asking a question.
The “prime” age has lengthened considerably with better health and longer lifespans nowadays. Much to do with why the elderly may produce less could be their belief system about aging, that they should stop playing and learning, and allowed social/familial responsibilities to take their itching away? Who knows?
Or, they may have simply lost their inner child and become set in their ways…
[QUOTE=”Jeff Rosenbury, post: 5440122, member: 476307″]While incremental discoveries are made throughout scientists’ lives, important theoretical breakthroughs tend to be concentrated in young scientists before they become too set in their ways.[/QUOTE]
Even if these breakthroughs are concentrated in young scientists, I don’t agree that the main reason is because they aren’t set in their ways. I think there are plenty of other possibilities. Older scientists tend to take on supervisory or managerial roles for one thing. And I don’t necessarily agree that these breakthroughs are concentrated in younger scientists. But I admit I haven’t delved into the details of this subject before.
[QUOTE=”Giovanniontheweb, post: 5439817, member: 590636″] As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake and the following points look clear to me
[/QUOTE]
This may be true in some areas of knowledge (like America was discovered by “mistake”, for example).
But this thread started as a discussion about theories in science. These are not discovered by accident. Actually they are not even “discovered”. They are created by people with a purpose in mind.
Not all of human achievement is due to “discovery”, accidental or purposeful.
A lot is due to creative work. And this includes not only literature, arts, music etc. but scientific theories as well.
A good theory does not require less creativity than a good novel. And usually more time, hard work and some genius too.
I like to think that most people have a teeny bit of the “B” type inside. Just like the Rock Star scenario… or the potential Cult Hero. Yeah, I think that’s me – the Cult Hero. Although shredding that Fender Strat in front of 100,000 screaming fans does run a close second. Anyways, now I can also accept the “B” Side scientist ; )
[QUOTE=”Drakkith, post: 5440018, member: 272035″]I’d disagree with this. While there are “accidental” discoveries, I’d say the vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from discoveries made by people who devoted years of their time to something. In other words, they were actively investigating something in an attempt to understand it.
I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner. The fact is that scientists are all individuals with a wide variety of skills, interests, ways of thinking, and attitudes. They run the entire spectrum of personalities and morality, just like the rest of the population. The only difference between a scientist and a non-scientist is the former is usually in a profession dedicated to science, while the latter is usually not. There is nothing inherently limiting about scientists that isn’t present everywhere else in humanity.[/QUOTE]
While incremental discoveries are made throughout scientists’ lives, important theoretical breakthroughs tend to be concentrated in young scientists before they become too set in their ways. Of course there are lots of exceptions and caveats, but the period between learning and teaching seems critical to understanding new ideas.
“I don’t understand why…” seems critical to breakthroughs.
[QUOTE=”Giovanniontheweb, post: 5439817, member: 590636″]As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake[/QUOTE]
I’d disagree with this. While there are “accidental” discoveries, I’d say the vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from discoveries made by people who devoted years of their time to something. In other words, they were actively investigating something in an attempt to understand it.
[QUOTE=”Giovanniontheweb, post: 5439817, member: 590636″]b) The so called scientists are very much format in their own thinking path that makes them at the same time very clever and very limited[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner. The fact is that scientists are all individuals with a wide variety of skills, interests, ways of thinking, and attitudes. They run the entire spectrum of personalities and morality, just like the rest of the population. The only difference between a scientist and a non-scientist is the former is usually in a profession dedicated to science, while the latter is usually not. There is nothing inherently limiting about scientists that isn’t present everywhere else in humanity.
[QUOTE=”CWatters, post: 5439072, member: 423469″]Questions are generally welcome provided you show some effort has been made to find your own answer first. Otherwise the first reply you get will be…What do you think and why?[/QUOTE]
Actually, the first is an observation (in a way) about electromagnetism and wondering if it applies to gravity, and the other is an observation about gravity and wondering if it applies to electromagnetism (these aren’t random observations; it would make sense if both applied to both fields).
Human is indeed a motivation-driven being, if I’m spending my time typing on this small keyboard is not because I care about transmitting to you any useful information but because I do care about my inner integrity.
I did appreciate few last posts about pop science that I’ve found well done, with care and relevant background, as you can share when you are around 18 with friends of yours.
I’ve been surprised lately about how many questions coming from kids I could’t answer when my clock says 50 turns, neither I feel confortable to say that courious pop science people are less knowledgeble than myself . I do understand bad engineering as it comes around and, by axtrapolation I might understand scientist’s mood. As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake and the following points look clear to me
a) Detecting scientific mistakes happen in the labs where common people spend very limited time
b) The so called scientists are very much format in their own thinking path that makes them at the same time very clever and very limited
Well, nothing is lost, common to all beings, including the so called animals, looks to be curiosity, I hope I’ll be able to deal with my neibour’s kid next question, maybe we will have less pop science in the future and more real scientists..
I’m afraid that this thread has now strayed into the ‘Galileo and the Spanish Inquisition’ neck of the woods. PF is perfectly tolerant of almost anything as long as it’s presented in a non-loony and polite way. It’s always quite possible use the ‘my friend thinks XYZ and I am trying to put him right’ approach, if you think you’re pushing your luck. Frankly, if somebody can’t present the ‘new’ idea in a reasonable way, it probably really is nonsense and it’s no great loss for PF or the World.
I think I’m out of here.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5439152, member: 197831″]Can you give specific examples? Feel free to PM me links to them if you would prefer not to link to them in a public discussion thread.[/QUOTE]
PM is much better for this. I think I have some interesting physics which i just sent you a PM and a “link”.
[QUOTE=”Charles Link, post: 5439083, member: 583509″]I am still quite new to the website, but was scolded for it before I established any significant credibility. I still think those posts had some scientific merit[/QUOTE]
Can you give specific examples? Feel free to PM me links to them if you would prefer not to link to them in a public discussion thread.