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 so little interest in such personal theories, independently of whatever rules a particular forum might have. Is it just because people are closed-minded, and 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 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 before 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 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 know anything about the established theories 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. 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, other experts are looking at 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 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=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444469, member: 591032″]we’re all born equal,[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. You can always quote an exception to the general trend but there is a big chunk of ‘nature’ in the ‘nature and nurture’ thing.
I don’t see what the problem is in accepting that people are all different. I do know that pressuring kids to do well, academically, when they are struggling hard to keep up can be very counter productive. You couldn’t hope to make all kids good at everything – just to give them the option of brilliant performance in something later in their lives. What people don;t seem to realise is that, if you tell kids they can succeed in anything if they only try hard enough and they fail, they brand themselves as a failure. We are talking about Education ( in the broad sense) here and part of a good education is to give people the ability to realise their capabilities and an ability to accept limitations. Life is a pyramid and the point is at the top. However egalitarian we may want to be, we can never change that. All we can do is to try to ensure that the ‘nurture’ part is made as good as possible for all. We have some way to go there.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444469, member: 591032″]Don’t assume the upper echelons of anything are beyond reach, we’re all born equal, look at the Mixed martial artist Connor mcgregor, after a lifetime of quiet work, on state benefits, turned the establishment on its head. Interestingly a large part of their training is surrounded by chaos theory.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is assuming that. Your example shows what a person can achieve when they put in a lifetime of work. The main point in this thread is about people who think they can achieve something great without putting in the work.
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5444467, member: 199289″]Yes, indeed (at the top level). Just like World Class Sport and Music. But it is strange that no one (once they have thought about it) really reckons they could compete in a Premiership club team – no one ‘resents’ that fact. Somehow, when it comes to academia, anyone ‘could’ do anything and the resentment kicks in.
Personally,I have no problem at all with the fact that there are people posting here on PF with much higher ability and knowledge than me. I am just relieved that such people exist in the world, who take care of all the really hard stuff.
Did any of you ever read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?[/QUOTE]
Don’t assume the upper echelons of anything are beyond reach, we’re all born equal, look at the Mixed martial artist Connor mcgregor, after a lifetime of quiet work, on state benefits, turned the establishment on its head. Interestingly a large part of their training is surrounded by chaos theory.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444463, member: 591032″]Physics is a very closed off world[/QUOTE]
Yes, indeed (at the top level). Just like World Class Sport and Music. But it is strange that no one (once they have thought about it) really reckons they could compete in a Premiership club team – no one ‘resents’ that fact. Somehow, when it comes to academia, anyone ‘could’ do anything and the resentment kicks in.
Personally,I have no problem at all with the fact that there are people posting here on PF with much higher ability and knowledge than me. I am just relieved that such people exist in the world, who take care of all the really hard stuff.
Did any of you ever read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?
Physics is a very closed off world and does come across as very elitist, I apologise however if this was not your intention. Analysis of people’s language without the context of their body language and tone of voice can be like looking for quarks with a magnifying glass
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444450, member: 591032″]Einstein was a crackpot outsider and most non-non-scientists still don’t know how to apply his theory because if they did, they would realise relativity is applicable to the quantum world and once you figure that out, sky is the limit. The one of the biggest reasons theorems from outsiders lies in the condescending tone of your response…[/QUOTE]
I really don’t get where you’re coming from here. I was referring to crackpots on the forum who post personal theories without even knowing the basics of the physics that they belive that they can change. Einstein does not fit in this definition of a crackpot because he did know far more than just the basics. There is nothing condescending about this, it is just a fact.
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5437149, member: 199289″]If you have something worth saying then it will not be just out of the blue. Einstein had a track record and so does anyone who can break new ground. If they haven’t done the established stuff to a reasonable level then anything that they come up with is little better than monkeys and typewriters. If they introduce a ‘glimmer’ of something worth while then how will it ever be spotted amongst all the rubbish that they compete with? We just have to wait a bit for someone else to have the idea. It will happen.[/QUOTE]
I think I love you,
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5436599, member: 197831″]PeterDonis submitted a new PF Insights post
[URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/’]Why Won’t You Look at My New Theory?[/URL]
[IMG]https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/personaltheories1.png[/IMG]
[URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/’]Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.[/URL][/QUOTE]
From the point of a psychologist, there are a few cognitive biases that come into play also, firstly is the confirmation bias. We tend to seek information that confirms what we already know, it is called preferential attachment, a principle,
[I][Moderator’s note: edited to delete off topic content.][/I]
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443622, member: 589823″]If you’re asking for my actual intellectual capacity on these, I’m very well invested and continue to.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5443741, member: 197831″]how do I know your opinion is worth anything?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I should expand on this a little. A recurrent theme in your posts is that you see problems with the way science is done–scientists are too unwilling to consider new ideas, too quick to shut down discussion, too quick to accept a theory if it’s proposed by a person with the right reputation, etc. These are your opinions, but again: how do I know your opinions are worth anything? Basically, you’re giving an example of what I’m talking about: you’re proposing a “new theory” about how science should be done, but you haven’t demonstrated that you understand the current “theory”–the way science is currently done. In fact, it seems to me from what you’re saying that you [I]don’t[/I] understand how science is currently done. So why should I pay any attention to your opinions about how it should be done?
(Also please bear in mind that PF’s purpose is not to “do” science, but to discuss science that’s already been done. Part of that discussion can also be about how science is done, but in the end, as I’ve said before, PF is not the place to propose new theories.)
[USER=589823]@Scott Mayers[/USER], a general comment: your posts are getting longer, but much of what you are saying is still irrelevant to this discussion. Please keep to the point. PF also has a rule about hijacking threads. I’m going to respond to the few things that are relevant. Please limit your discussion accordingly.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443622, member: 589823″]Non-response occurs as much when more people simply agree too.[/QUOTE]
Sure, that’s possible in general. But I think it’s extremely unlikely in the specific scenario we’re talking about–where, hypothetically, someone has just posted a new theory that claims to explain something that current theories don’t. If the new theory actually looks worth considering, people who think that aren’t likely to just stay silent.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443622, member: 589823″]how is this valid except as an arbitrary practical consideration of what some set of people determine is politically worthy of attention based on popularity of those they personally favor over others for one reason or another?[/QUOTE]
The criterion being used to determine what is worthy of attention is not “arbitrary”. I have already given the key criterion: for your idea to be worthy of attention, you have to demonstrate that you have put in the time and effort to understand what is already known, and can explain how your new idea explains something that existing theories don’t. Your only response to this is, basically, “I don’t want to”. Sorry, but I don’t care.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443622, member: 589823″]I’m a bit surprised at how many forums of science default to commanding no one question specific theories in a similar way.[/QUOTE]
If you think PF is doing this, you are seriously misunderstanding the rules. We aren’t telling you not to question specific theories. We are telling you [I]how[/I] to question specific theories: by first [I]understanding[/I] them, and being able to demonstrate your understanding.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443622, member: 589823″]Theories are often artistic[/QUOTE]
Science is an art. That’s why the analogy with other arts–such as the concert pianist comment I made–is apt. Nobody would expect to be taken seriously as a concert pianist without having taken the time and effort to learn how to play the piano and develop an understanding of music. Similarly, nobody should expect to be taken seriously as a proposer of new theories without having taken the time and effort to learn how to construct theories and develop an understanding of the theories we already have.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443622, member: 589823″]If you’re asking for my actual intellectual capacity on these, I’m very well invested and continue to.[/QUOTE]
I asked you how much time and effort you have put in. This does not answer that question. I’m looking for something along the lines of “I’ve spent X number of years studying QM and relativity. I have worked through textbooks A, B, and C. I have taken courses D, E, and F.” And so on. Just a statement that “I’m very well invested” is meaningless; that’s your personal opinion, but how do I know your opinion is worth anything?
If you absolutely refuse to give more details about what time and effort you’ve put in to understand QM and relativity, you have an alternative: you could demonstrate to me directly that you understand QM and relativity. For example, you could clarify what you meant by the statement I responded to in my last post, the one I said I wasn’t sure what it meant–by “clarified” I mean “restate in terms that someone familiar with QM and relativity would understand”.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443622, member: 589823″]I think I’ve done this here with more clarity[/QUOTE]
You have given no specific examples of what I asked for: people who had a new idea that really was worth considering, and, according to you, demonstrated a “clear understanding” of existing theories, but nevertheless got shut down in a PF discussion instead of being heard. Can you give any?
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443622, member: 589823″]. But I feel burdened to have to ‘read the Bible’ and begged to use the same kind of lingo to appeal to those who can’t notice the problems between them and related issues. .[/QUOTE]
So you find it a burden put in the work to learn the material before criticizing it, and you find it a burden to listen to what the experts say – i.e. having an actual two-way dialog. And yet it’s the scientists who are arrogant.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5443349, member: 197831″]Others responding is a sign that they’re interested. Others not responding is a sign that they’re not. Obviously that’s not the only factor involved, but I didn’t claim in the article that it was.[/quote]
Thank you. I wasn’t sure if you were interpreting it this way. I disagree. Non-response occurs as much when more people simply agree too. Depending on the topic some will agree but not bother positing accolades. This is often a personality trait of the optimist who might feel it necessary to assert agreement and are ones who might favor things like, ‘likes’, in social media circles. For many, they just prefer to respond to what appears disagreeable. It would be interesting to do a study on how people might respond but would equally be biased depending on whether those doing the study are optimist or realists too!
[quote]
I’m trying to explain why others are extremely likely not to be interested in theories put forward online in forums. I’m not sure how “justification” is relevant; everyone has to decide for themselves what they are interested in and how to spend their time.[/quote]
This isn’t the case though. I mentioned how there is a natural tendency for businesses to voluntarily ‘conspire’ defeating Adam Smith’s justification for allowing a hands off favoritism of businesses based on the assumption that their ‘demand’ (interest of consumers) is always equally empowered to decide what is worthy of interest. What actually occurs favors businesses to ‘get with the program’ and voluntarily opt in to methods that favor ‘supply’ side control. With relevance to this topic, people who have the power to operate forums, will tend to favor censoring, like one who owns a mall thinks they have a right to delimiting rules of their favor when presenting their business spaces as ‘private’ property even though they depend on ‘public’ access. As such, there IS less power of those supposed [I]morons[/I] being assumed by innuendo who waste time attempting to publish their views in forums. It is also NOT true that people have ease of access and an equal competitive means to do things like start up their own blogs, gain interest to it, etc. Favor still will go to those with the power in some political sense.
[quote]
I think you’re mistaken about the primary reasons why papers are peer-reviewed before being published in most journals. The primary reason is that journals have reputations to maintain; publication is supposed to be a reliable indicator that the work is worth taking seriously. As for “publication” in the sense of posting on arxiv.org, that’s different; no screening or refereeing is done for that, because, as you say, putting things up on the Internet is cheap. They do require some sort of institutional affiliation, though; but other sites such a vixra have sprung up to allow people to get around that as well.[/quote] “Reputation” is what matters and what arouses concern. And how is this valid except as an arbitrary practical consideration of what some set of people determine is politically worthy of attention based on popularity of those they personally favor over others for one reason or another?
[quote]
If you can’t get posted on one of the sites mentioned above, you can always put up your own website; that can be done for a few dollars a month. Then you can post whatever you want. The issue I was discussing in the article is not who is “allowed” to post; it is about the interest or lack thereof that others will have in what is posted.[/quote]
[quote]
Um, you do realize that in the article, I said explicitly that the assumption that only “professional scientists” can come up with valid theories is [I]wrong[/I], don’t you? And that I also said explicitly that even scientists can’t always be trusted to fairly represent science?
What I have said, though more in this discussion than in the article itself, is that, if the person presenting their theory, whether they are a scientist or not, has not put in the time and effort to understand what is already known, and to be able to explain, in the accepted standard language of the field in question, how their new theory does something that existing theories don’t, then they aren’t likely to get any interest from others. That’s not because they’re “not a scientist”; it’s because they haven’t put in the time and effort.[/quote]
I was actually thinking of how I’ve noticed religious people apologizing for some belief in their sacred sources. One common response to why one would place trust in the bible based on what the bible itself asserts is or is not true. Saying that the bible is authored by God, for instance, is deemed ‘provable’ by those of their particular religion if only one should INVEST the time in actually reading it. It reverses the burden on others to expect they should be the ones to first do their homework. It’s also a reason why some team of lawyers in a court or politicians in legislation would opt to ‘burden’ their opponents with so much paperwork that it begs others to hopefully stop trying to question their authority or just ‘pick a side’ based on emotions alone. These tactics are as much relevant here when considering who is or is not worthy of being listened to. I’d rather caution on the side of assuming nothing about particular declarations of those proposing theories if only to demonstrate the sincerity of those running forums appealing to truth as not themselves biased in some way. I’m a bit surprised at how many forums of science default to commanding no one question specific theories in a similar way. If public forums themselves are venues only to ‘sell’ their own ideas, like malls representing public spaces are presented as actually ‘private’ spaces, their tendency will be to foster those businesses within them irrelevant to the actual public’s interest except in appearances. I’m discovering that while ‘science’ is supposed to be something we ALL own publicly, in practice, this is defeated by those demanding others to accept that what is ‘supplied’ as representing what people actually want and value as ‘truth’, and not what people ‘demand’ in their understanding.
[quote]
For someone who is familiar with a field, it’s pretty easy to tell even from a single post whether a person proposing a new theory in that field understands the field. Whether or not anyone else has responded to the post is irrelevant in making that determination.[/quote]No, it tells you what kind of socially common etiquette they share with you. If one goes through the same kind of institutions learning similar vocabulary and expected means of communicating, those who are outsiders doing it with their own drive will inevitably lack the same etiquette. But this becomes the arbiter that discriminates those who [I]may[/I] have virtue in their words but can’t compete simply for not affording the luxury of education with the same standards. It should be noted though that for those that ‘volunteer’ to assert theories, they have a more likely virtuous quality of being self-derived, self-motivated, thinkers rather than automatons who’ve learned what is true based on their ability to demonstrate conformity or to things like their capacity to maintain a lot of data in their heads without necessarily being able to logically draw their own actual conclusions.
[quote]
And the act of constructing theories to explain observations. Does anyone really believe that theories aren’t part of science?[/quote]
Yes. Theories are often artistic in that they depend on intuition with more significance and ones capacity to argue in some consistent logic, not simply one’s skill at referencing others or demonstrating good clerical skills of the vast majority of scientists. Your (a) example was of what IS most of science, true. But this is mostly of those who ARE most clerical and able to be strict to their methods. These are the majority and are Tycho Brahe personalities who are important to science but tend to lack the logical acuity of those like Kepler, who’s like your (b) examples and have a better skill at bringing the efforts of the practical scientists into philosophy. But those like Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, ARE more philosophers than they are scientists even while dependent upon those anal types to provide the muscle of science. But because the vast majority ARE of the (a) types, they also tend to dominate the whole of science in ways that often make them favor an elitist kind of preference by others to respect their ‘authority’. Truth is NOT a democracy though. I can have compassion and understanding of this but we need to also accept the philosopher types who often appear odd or unusual. Even if many are as potentially flaky, their ideas should not be censored when unnecessary as it is for forums now.
[quote]
You really need to learn more about how science is actually done.[/quote] Tycho Brahe style? Kepler style? There is a lot of divergent views on this and just because you may be on the popular side of your own preference of how it should be done, it is not so black and white. If science should be more strictly anal like Brahe, then I say “shut up and drive” (stick to observing, not pretending that this implies one is good at connecting things with logical skill). I prefer to allow science to be a function of philosophy but don’t believe that most scientists know the distinction or care.
[quote]
I’m not sure what this means. But it raises an obvious question: how much time and effort have you put into learning about QM and relativity?[/quote] If you’re asking for my actual intellectual capacity on these, I’m very well invested and continue to. But I feel burdened to have to ‘read the Bible’ and begged to use the same kind of lingo to appeal to those who can’t notice the problems between them and related issues. They are more about the politics (including economics) and are evolving into a new priestly caste by a large majority because they are composed of a majority of those (a) type of ‘science’ you reference. [Tycho Brahe types]
[quote]
I’m suggesting that, as I said above and as I have said repeatedly in this thread, before even trying to figure out a new theory, much less post it for others to see, you should put in the time and effort to learn what is currently known. If you haven’t, it will be obvious, and will almost certainly result in nobody taking any interest in your idea.
We do get complaints from people whose posts have received warnings for [U]violating the PF rules[/U] on personal theories and [U]acceptable sources[/U], yes. But we also get complaints that we allow too many personal theory posts to [U]clutter up the forums and obscure content[/U] that has value.
The problem is that, even if nobody responds to them, their posts are still there, adding noise to the forums and making it harder for people to find content that has value. That’s why we have established rules about what is acceptable, and why we actively discourage posts outside those rules. People can always find other forums, or, as I said above, they can post on their own websites. It’s not as though PF is the only place where people can post their theories.[/quote]
People don’t admire the ‘clutter’ of our waste and think it alright to do whatever it takes to simply hide it. This was and IS appealing. But now we’ve realized that our landfills and sewage, among other environmental junk, are also creating more problems as people easily dismiss this pollution in causes environmentally without thinking about means to recycle or try to seek advantage of the stuff we toss away indiscriminately. Both extremes are bad. But we have to begin to recognize the reality of both and respect that BOTH are of equal force. We have to watch what we eat AND what we shit even though it seems easy only to think of favoring what we eat.
You are appearing to be optimistic by assuming there are others elsewhere. This is like the more conservative-bent economist thinking that what is ‘free’ to choose in principle is all that proves we have ‘freedom’. I am ‘free’ to buy a Cadillac, for instance, in this type of thinking. I am told that only my own WILL determines whether I could actually achieve such an expensive vehicle as if my inability is merely just something of fault with my personal character instead. But reality is actually optimized to favor those who already HAVE initial sufficient fortunes that grant them real choices. And they falsely interpret their own capacity to receive what they want as ‘proof’ that ALL people have the same freedom.
It is NOT the case to assert that there are ‘other places’ to go. Even where there are, like some potential free blog one could set up, they realistically get even less notice as they blur into piles of garbage in some landfill with scavenger birds everywhere hiding what potential trophies one might discover their. Its a lose-lose for those ‘theorists’. We need to recognize the virtue of being patient with those we think are trash and opt to recycle the values they hold in them rather than continue to discriminate against them. You’d be surprised how they might BECOME valuable later on.
[quote]
Please give some specific examples. And be prepared to be disagreed with regarding whether the people in your examples really did have a “clear understanding of the issues”.
Also, a general comment: much of your post is irrelevant to this discussion. PF can’t solve problems with the formal education system or the scientific peer review system or the general attitude of society. Please try to focus on the specific points in the article, and on the specific venue of PF and its rules.[/QUOTE]I think I’ve done this here with more clarity and apologize if it appears to digress. I think it still relevant even if I digress a bit. I don’t disagree with your essay in total and so can only try to argue what I DO disagree with. At least this isn’t ‘junk’ for some of us liking the depth. Most prefer Twitter-like short responses because it easily fits on to their iPhone screens and trying to scroll past long threads gets annoying for them given their hectic multitasking lifestyles. I hope you are as much entertained as I am to discuss this with you with sincerity to seek solutions. To me, THIS IS as much ‘theoretical science’ being practiced; but it is “Kepler-like”, something that needs no novel experiment with prophesy to make it more valid and functional.
Precisely …. thanks for validating my theory.
[QUOTE=”houlahound, post: 5443530, member: 551046″]Before my time here, therefore it never happened….[/QUOTE]
So using that logic, you don’t think fire has been discovered either.
Zz.
Before my time here, therefore it never happened….
[QUOTE=”houlahound, post: 5443360, member: 551046″]Why not start a sub forum for outsider science, anybody can dump err publish their theories to be poked err critiqued….[/QUOTE]
Been there, done that.
[URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/pf-needs-a-personal-theory-forum-like-we-need-a-computer-virus.765736/[/URL]
Zz.
The intertube is full of places for theories, let the crack pots have most of it …and leave this one corner for reality based science.
[QUOTE=”houlahound, post: 5443360, member: 551046″]Why not start a sub forum for outsider science, anybody can dump err publish their theories to be poked err critiqued….[/QUOTE]
PF already tried this a number of years ago. It doesn’t work. We attracted crackpots to this subforum who didn’t want to listen to criticism and then spilled over into the rest of the forums, where they spread their nonsense.
Why not start a sub forum for outsider science, anybody can dump err publish their theories to be poked err critiqued….
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]I’m not sure how we can be sure of what does actually get read if this is based on others responding.[/QUOTE]
Others responding is a sign that they’re interested. Others not responding is a sign that they’re not. Obviously that’s not the only factor involved, but I didn’t claim in the article that it was.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]I’m unsure if you are trying to justify some reason to dismiss those who put forward ‘theories’ online in forums?[/QUOTE]
I’m trying to explain why others are extremely likely not to be interested in theories put forward online in forums. I’m not sure how “justification” is relevant; everyone has to decide for themselves what they are interested in and how to spend their time.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]We are no longer in need of much concern today to screen or referee material for publication because that was only truly justified by the limits of it being practical for the costs involved in publishing through printed media[/QUOTE]
I think you’re mistaken about the primary reasons why papers are peer-reviewed before being published in most journals. The primary reason is that journals have reputations to maintain; publication is supposed to be a reliable indicator that the work is worth taking seriously. As for “publication” in the sense of posting on arxiv.org, that’s different; no screening or refereeing is done for that, because, as you say, putting things up on the Internet is cheap. They do require some sort of institutional affiliation, though; but other sites such a vixra have sprung up to allow people to get around that as well.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]for those who even remotely feel they have a reason to contribute their ideas, they should do so, even if in error.[/QUOTE]
If you can’t get posted on one of the sites mentioned above, you can always put up your own website; that can be done for a few dollars a month. Then you can post whatever you want. The issue I was discussing in the article is not who is “allowed” to post; it is about the interest or lack thereof that others will have in what is posted.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]You are positively asserting that there IS NO INTEREST in non-scientists presenting ‘theories’ by audiences.[/QUOTE]
Um, you do realize that in the article, I said explicitly that the assumption that only “professional scientists” can come up with valid theories is [I]wrong[/I], don’t you? And that I also said explicitly that even scientists can’t always be trusted to fairly represent science?
What I have said, though more in this discussion than in the article itself, is that, if the person presenting their theory, whether they are a scientist or not, has not put in the time and effort to understand what is already known, and to be able to explain, in the accepted standard language of the field in question, how their new theory does something that existing theories don’t, then they aren’t likely to get any interest from others. That’s not because they’re “not a scientist”; it’s because they haven’t put in the time and effort.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]I have now argued that you cannot determine this based upon activity and so wonder how you determine even this?[/QUOTE]
For someone who is familiar with a field, it’s pretty easy to tell even from a single post whether a person proposing a new theory in that field understands the field. Whether or not anyone else has responded to the post is irrelevant in making that determination.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]a minimal description uncontested by ALL people….that science AT LEAST is agreed to involve the act of observation[/QUOTE]
And the act of constructing theories to explain observations. Does anyone really believe that theories aren’t part of science?
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]it is rare to see anyone allow alternative explanations for some theories because credibility is extended to the original author’s explanation by default[/QUOTE]
You really need to learn more about how science is actually done.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]one might have a form of explanation that combines what each area may seem conflicting at first by merely inverting some perspective component factors of one of those theories in their respective fields. (I think this can be done with QM and Relativity, for instance)[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what this means. But it raises an obvious question: how much time and effort have you put into learning about QM and relativity?
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]I’m uncertain what you are suggesting beyond some “why’s” about those posting ‘theories'[/QUOTE]
I’m suggesting that, as I said above and as I have said repeatedly in this thread, before even trying to figure out a new theory, much less post it for others to see, you should put in the time and effort to learn what is currently known. If you haven’t, it will be obvious, and will almost certainly result in nobody taking any interest in your idea.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]I’m guessing the actual complaints likely come from those being censured in some way[/QUOTE]
We do get complaints from people whose posts have received warnings for violating the PF rules on personal theories and acceptable sources, yes. But we also get complaints that we allow too many personal theory posts to clutter up the forums and obscure content that has value.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]The trick is to let people speak and if they don’t contribute anything of value, they’ll eventually get bored and not bother when no one responds nor censures them.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that, even if nobody responds to them, their posts are still there, adding noise to the forums and making it harder for people to find content that has value. That’s why we have established rules about what is acceptable, and why we actively discourage posts outside those rules. People can always find other forums, or, as I said above, they can post on their own websites. It’s not as though PF is the only place where people can post their theories.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5443295, member: 589823″]not enough respect is granted to some of those people who actually DO put the time and effort into self-education with a clear understanding of the issues but get dismissed for their different ways of trying to communicate or, more often, to not conforming to some authoritative standards and ‘etiquette’ that those that who often go through the formal systems don’t realize they possess as what others may call, ‘elitist'[/QUOTE]
Please give some specific examples. And be prepared to be disagreed with regarding whether the people in your examples really did have a “clear understanding of the issues”.
Also, a general comment: much of your post is irrelevant to this discussion. PF can’t solve problems with the formal education system or the scientific peer review system or the general attitude of society. Please try to focus on the specific points in the article, and on the specific venue of PF and its rules.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5443062, member: 197831″]The answer to this one is easy: nobody. A scientific theory should stand or fall based on whether its predictions match experiments. No “authority” except experiment deems it right or wrong.
The issue I see here is that you are confusing the truth I just stated with a different statement: that, since a theory stands or falls based on whether its predictions match experiments, any time anyone comes up with any idea they think is a “scientific theory”, it should get tested by experiment. That’s not possible. People have to make judgments about what ideas are or aren’t worth developing and testing. The fact that you think you have a great new theory does not mean anyone else either will or should agree with you. And in fact the odds are very heavily against you: that’s why I went to the trouble in the article of pointing out that the vast majority of situations are of type A, not type B. Furthermore, the vast majority of “theories” that people come up with are not scientific theories–they’re just vague ideas that can’t even be put into a form that could be tested anyway. As Pauli said, they’re “not even wrong”.[/quote]
You asserted this: “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.” You were assuming something intrinsic in the thought processes of those proposing theories with the added assumption that the ones of concern are non-scientists. You also assume something about the audience since your thesis is worded to question why they aren’t reading.
I’m not sure how we can be sure of what does actually get read if this is based on others responding. An ‘agreeable’ posting by someone may justify a non-response because it may provide sufficient closure to others that they find no need to respond. Adding anything [I]may[/I] only be of compliment in such cases and is interpreted by many to be unnecessary, superfluous flattery or ass-kissing. So it is not just threads that get active updated responses that assure it is or is not being viewed by others in all cases. And also given that non-active threads get buried relatively fast, there is a short window of time from the last poster of which those who may potentially all agree don’t respond for this reason and so loses the likelihood of even being noticed long enough to be certain the lack of activity assures it as being purposely ignored.
[quote]
I’ll have to be blunt here: no.[to asserting a political factor involved] Nobody’s idea deserves respect just because they came up with it. The way to get respect for your idea is to do the hard work yourself of learning what is currently known, and being able to explain how your new idea provides something that is missing from what is currently known, and showing how your idea can be tested so we can see which way Nature votes. In other words, it’s up to you, the person with the idea, to show that the situation your idea addresses is truly of type B, not type A. It’s not up to anyone else to grant your idea respect just because you think it’s a good one.[/quote]
The problem I think occurs though is that once someone gains a ‘trust’ upon something they’ve proven true with popular supports, just as one inversely may prove ‘unpopular’, [I]reputation[/I] is inappropriately granted the deciding factor of whatever one’s particular ideas are universally fair in their description of their own theory. Darwin, for instance, doesn’t “own” his theory as some intrinsic characteristic of himself. That is, while we might lend his name to his own theory to help us remember which of many ideas are which, Natural Selection is NOT a property of Charles Darwin. This is why I find it odd, for instance, that some should bother responding to those asserting Darwin dismissed his own theory on his deathbed by attempting to show that he did not. If Darwin became a notorious evil criminal, would this matter to the relevance of his theory? So to me, giving relevance to the persons presenting a theory with either a good or a bad reputation is as much about politics and not necessarily to the virtue of the author.
I agree thus that nobody deserves respect for coming up with some theory, if you include those who came with with valid ones as much as invalid ones. But I’m unsure if you are trying to justify some reason to dismiss those who put forward ‘theories’ online in forums? We are no longer in need of much concern today to screen or referee material for publication because that was only truly justified by the limits of it being practical for the costs involved in publishing through printed media. It is relatively becoming ‘obsolete’ given we now have the Internet and relatively cheap means to store data. So for those who even remotely feel they have a reason to contribute their ideas, they should do so, even if in error. Its politics if one thinks they should curb their enthusiasm in ‘theorizing’ for fear of appearing dumb or unpopular or just because they appear to be invisible. You are positively asserting that there IS NO INTEREST in non-scientists presenting ‘theories’ by audiences. I have now argued that you cannot determine this based upon activity and so wonder how you determine even this? And why should it matter?
[quote]
I think you have an extremely narrow view of what “science” consists of. Newton and Einstein were scientists. Newton not only developed his theories, he ran his own experiments to test them; look up, for example, his experiments with optics. Einstein, while he was not an experimentalist himself, kept in very close touch with experimentalists as he developed his theories, so that he was up to date on the latest experimental results. Look up, for example, his work on the photoelectric effect or his work with Perrin on Brownian motion–these are good examples because they’re less well known than his classic work on relativity, so they often get forgotten about when Einstein is mistakenly thought of as an ivory-tower theorist.[/quote] ‘Narrow’ only points to my reference of a minimal description uncontested by ALL people….that science AT LEAST is agreed to involve the act of observation. What is not so clear is to the degree of philosophy and logic involved is or is not ‘science’.
Take the issue of ‘predictability’ for instance. If I predict X to occur and it does, while it may lend potential weight to those who witnessed my prediction prior to observing as validating some theory of mine, no matter how popular my theory is or even to how others are able to ‘replicate’ some experiment I might use to base my novel theory on, this is not sufficient to justify my [U]unique[/U] explanation as the correct one or in need of someone else to propose a novel experiment to dislodge my explanation for their own. Yet it is rare to see anyone allow alternative explanations for some theories because credibility is extended to the original author’s explanation by default even if one has some potentially better alternative explanation without a concern to defeating the actual theory, the math, or to its observations involved. The set of institutions involved rely on maintaining the credibility of their own heroes and agree to this among other institutes by default. As such, there is a tendency to conserve the original author’s explanation with a demand that others MUST originate a new experiment, not simply an alternative explanation of the same theory via some alternative [I]perspective[/I]. This is just one example of why some would put forward some ‘alternative’ theory. But note that I don’t think the significance is on whether one’s mere statement or preference of some “alternate” view exists makes them equally valid. The logic still MUST fit appropriately given all things accepted in observation as well as to predictions. This is logical just as it is true we can have a multitude of different architectures to design the same kind of computer with equivalent goals and use different languages to program them. It might be relatively arbitrary to care when given two computers with identical qualities which one explanation deserves any improvement. But when contrasting computers, say, with biology, for instance, one might have a form of explanation that combines what each area may seem conflicting at first by merely inverting some perspective component factors of one of those theories in their respective fields. (I think this can be done with QM and Relativity, for instance)
[quote]
If we actually adopted this policy in practice, we would be unable to have any kind of useful discussion of science. The extremely rare ideas that are worth considering would be drowned out by orders of magnitude by the noise of people who simply don’t have enough understanding to have useful ideas, but who insist on being heard.[/quote]
I agree to this in principle but see that some things with regards to living conscious things, like us people, tend to always find some means to still abuse any means when we use this rationale to justify some form of censure. Take the economics of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” for example and how his arguments for a laissez-faire system is rational. This is valid on considering its evolutionary logic. But in practice, the business entities involved in fact DO tend towards monopolies now even without overtly conspiring by becoming virtually ‘true’ conspiracies. If we thus hand the right of some governments to demand censure of non-economic-liberalism with the best of original intents, it still leads to the abuses by businesses. The same goes for the opposing philosophies.
I think that the political aspects of censuring through even strict demarcation of science as one thing and philosophy as another leads to these problems too. But to get back to your article, I’m uncertain what you are suggesting beyond some “why’s” about those posting ‘theories’ unless you felt a need to justify resistance. I can see that some might complain they may not be given attention by absent responses. But I’m guessing the actual complaints likely come from those being censured in some way, not to whether they are being read or not. In fact I’m guessing they are getting some form of attention you may personally think is too much in forums. The trick is to let people speak and if they don’t contribute anything of value, they’ll eventually get bored and not bother when no one responds nor censures them. It is the insult of being trivialized should censoring becomes apparent or to dismiss them as morons that leads to as much a rational reflective response to aid in the increased ‘theorists’ where they may exist.
[quote]
Note, btw, that even people who have taken the time to understand what is currently known only very rarely have new ideas that end up being worth considering. The difference is that someone who has taken the time can quickly see that most of their new ideas won’t work, all by themselves, without having to demand anyone else’s time and attention.
Science is universal knowledge because anyone can learn it–[I]if[/I] they put in the time and effort. Someone who wants the respect without having put in the time and effort is, as Robert Heinlein once said, like someone who wants to be a concert pianist, but does not want to practice.[/QUOTE]Agreed. But not enough respect is granted to some of those people who actually DO put the time and effort into self-education with a clear understanding of the issues but get dismissed for their different ways of trying to communicate or, more often, to not conforming to some authoritative standards and ‘etiquette’ that those that who often go through the formal systems don’t realize they possess as what others may call, ‘elitist’. Formal education is more often about one’s wealth and other inherent factors unnoticed as trivial factors. Something as subtle as being given a first vehicle before one turns 18 by a parent, even a junker, can make an extreme difference that gets overlooked. Give people charity up front. In time you might even influence them by your apparent acceptance rather than ridicule.
[QUOTE=”Laroxe, post: 5442569, member: 555853″]I always think its strange how many scientists criticise non scientists because they don’t know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it.[/QUOTE]I don’t think that you thought your example through all the way. If a scientist needs some building work done then they don’t need to learn how to do it. But if the scientists wants to actually DO the building work or DESIGN it then they had better learn how first! Same with science, if you think science/architecture is cool and want gain a recreational appreciation or admiration for fine examples then that is fine. If you want to produce/design your own buildings/science then you surely need to learn.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5443140, member: 6230″]When I review a manuscript, I am never swayed by the authors or where they are from. I’ve rejected manuscripts from top institutions.[/QUOTE]Most of the journals I review for use a blind review process, so I don’t even know who they are or what their credentials.
I don’t know if that is typical in other fields, but it at least refutes that criticism for some portion of journals.
Sorry, in 10 min can’t come up with a study. My recollection is that when the same study presented for peer review is authored by someone known in the field (especially more insular highly specialized areas where there are ‘insiders’) it is substantially more likely to be accepted than when authored by an unknown. This is concordant with the grant application process as explained to me by a biomedical researcher I knew. This is the effect I was referring to, but other problems exist. See
[URL]http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42553/title/Mass-Retraction/[/URL]
A similar con involved a terrible, wholly fictional study (intended to reveal problems) with terrible design that ‘proved’ that dark chocolate is good for the heart. It was so successful news picked it up and, if you’re like me, thought this was the case. It’s not- it was a hoax.
Lastly, to address some of these issues, nature offers double- blind peer reviews-
[URL]http://www.nature.com/news/nature-journals-offer-double-blind-review-1.16931[/URL]
Whom do you review for?
[QUOTE=”Charles Carter, post: 5443123, member: 585960″]Merely an aside (as I agree with your post), but reputation and academic standing, some might say politics, have been shown to affect likelihood of acceptance in peer-reviewed journals.[/QUOTE]
Do you have a study that shows this?
When I review a manuscript, I am never swayed by the authors or where they are from. I’ve rejected manuscripts from top institutions.
However, this can easily be an example where correlation does not imply causation. I can easily argue that authors from reputable institutions tend to have access to better facilities, better funding, better professional networking, etc that they tend to produce work that gets published due to the level of importance. So even if authors from such institutions are more likely to get published, the CAUSE isn’t the name of their institution.
Zz.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5443062, member: 197831″]The answer to this one is easy: nobody. A scientific theory should stand or fall based on whether its predictions match experiments. No “authority” except experiment deems it right or wrong.
The issue I see here is that you are confusing the truth I just stated with a different statement: that, since a theory stands or falls based on whether its predictions match experiments, any time anyone comes up with any idea they think is a “scientific theory”, it should get tested by experiment. That’s not possible. People have to make judgments about what ideas are or aren’t worth developing and testing. The fact that you think you have a great new theory does not mean anyone else either will or should agree with you. And in fact the odds are very heavily against you: that’s why I went to the trouble in the article of pointing out that the vast majority of situations are of type A, not type B. Furthermore, the vast majority of “theories” that people come up with are not scientific theories–they’re just vague ideas that can’t even be put into a form that could be tested anyway. As Pauli said, they’re “not even wrong”.
I’ll have to be blunt here: no. Nobody’s idea deserves respect just because they came up with it. The way to get respect for your idea is to do the hard work yourself of learning what is currently known, and being able to explain how your new idea provides something that is missing from what is currently known, and showing how your idea can be tested so we can see which way Nature votes. In other words, it’s up to you, the person with the idea, to show that the situation your idea addresses is truly of type B, not type A. It’s not up to anyone else to grant your idea respect just because you think it’s a good one.
I think you have an extremely narrow view of what “science” consists of. Newton and Einstein were scientists. Newton not only developed his theories, he ran his own experiments to test them; look up, for example, his experiments with optics. Einstein, while he was not an experimentalist himself, kept in very close touch with experimentalists as he developed his theories, so that he was up to date on the latest experimental results. Look up, for example, his work on the photoelectric effect or his work with Perrin on Brownian motion–these are good examples because they’re less well known than his classic work on relativity, so they often get forgotten about when Einstein is mistakenly thought of as an ivory-tower theorist.
If we actually adopted this policy in practice, we would be unable to have any kind of useful discussion of science. The extremely rare ideas that are worth considering would be drowned out by orders of magnitude by the noise of people who simply don’t have enough understanding to have useful ideas, but who insist on being heard.
Note, btw, that even people who have taken the time to understand what is currently known only very rarely have new ideas that end up being worth considering. The difference is that someone who has taken the time can quickly see that most of their new ideas won’t work, all by themselves, without having to demand anyone else’s time and attention.
Science is universal knowledge because anyone can learn it–[I]if[/I] they put in the time and effort. Someone who wants the respect without having put in the time and effort is, as Robert Heinlein once said, like someone who wants to be a concert pianist, but does not want to practice.[/QUOTE]
Merely an aside (as I agree with your post), but reputation and academic standing, some might say politics, have been shown to affect likelihood of acceptance in peer-reviewed journals. It is a problem, but given the previously mentioned signal to noise ratio, I’m not sure a better solution exists. And no one expects a peer reviewed journal to give much time to anyone without academic credentials. And here all knowledgeable respondents are volunteering their time and absolutely have freedom to choose what to read and reply to.
given nobody has refuted my Ostrich theory how do I go about gaining wider acceptance so it gets adopted into school curriculums and stuff ie – Ostrich ex-nihilo Theory.
I would like my theory to be legislated into official-ness.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5442890, member: 589823″]who are the arbiters granted [I]authority[/I] to deem one as qualified or not as being sufficiently wise to draw conclusions that should or should not get noticed[/QUOTE]
The answer to this one is easy: nobody. A scientific theory should stand or fall based on whether its predictions match experiments. No “authority” except experiment deems it right or wrong.
The issue I see here is that you are confusing the truth I just stated with a different statement: that, since a theory stands or falls based on whether its predictions match experiments, any time anyone comes up with any idea they think is a “scientific theory”, it should get tested by experiment. That’s not possible. People have to make judgments about what ideas are or aren’t worth developing and testing. The fact that you think you have a great new theory does not mean anyone else either will or should agree with you. And in fact the odds are very heavily against you: that’s why I went to the trouble in the article of pointing out that the vast majority of situations are of type A, not type B. Furthermore, the vast majority of “theories” that people come up with are not scientific theories–they’re just vague ideas that can’t even be put into a form that could be tested anyway. As Pauli said, they’re “not even wrong”.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5442890, member: 589823″]This is then moved into the realm of politics and deserves granting respect to all people on this subject[/QUOTE]
I’ll have to be blunt here: no. Nobody’s idea deserves respect just because they came up with it. The way to get respect for your idea is to do the hard work yourself of learning what is currently known, and being able to explain how your new idea provides something that is missing from what is currently known, and showing how your idea can be tested so we can see which way Nature votes. In other words, it’s up to you, the person with the idea, to show that the situation your idea addresses is truly of type B, not type A. It’s not up to anyone else to grant your idea respect just because you think it’s a good one.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5442890, member: 589823″]An example is how we confuse the distinction of those like Newton or Einstein as ‘scientists’ when they are more appropriately ‘philosophers of science’ and act as the intellectuals who connect the conclusions of practical science to theory through some form of logic and their capacity to explain there ideas to others.[/QUOTE]
I think you have an extremely narrow view of what “science” consists of. Newton and Einstein were scientists. Newton not only developed his theories, he ran his own experiments to test them; look up, for example, his experiments with optics. Einstein, while he was not an experimentalist himself, kept in very close touch with experimentalists as he developed his theories, so that he was up to date on the latest experimental results. Look up, for example, his work on the photoelectric effect or his work with Perrin on Brownian motion–these are good examples because they’re less well known than his classic work on relativity, so they often get forgotten about when Einstein is mistakenly thought of as an ivory-tower theorist.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5442890, member: 589823″]I think we have to not dismiss those speaking of theories, whether one qualifies them or not, as long as they appear to be sincere.[/QUOTE]
If we actually adopted this policy in practice, we would be unable to have any kind of useful discussion of science. The extremely rare ideas that are worth considering would be drowned out by orders of magnitude by the noise of people who simply don’t have enough understanding to have useful ideas, but who insist on being heard.
Note, btw, that even people who have taken the time to understand what is currently known only very rarely have new ideas that end up being worth considering. The difference is that someone who has taken the time can quickly see that most of their new ideas won’t work, all by themselves, without having to demand anyone else’s time and attention.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5442890, member: 589823″]If ‘science’ should be credible to represent universal knowledge, no one would actually ever have to pay for it nor be privileged to some prior respect to its institution prior to demonstrating the same respect to those they are trying to appeal to.[/QUOTE]
Science is universal knowledge because anyone can learn it–[I]if[/I] they put in the time and effort. Someone who wants the respect without having put in the time and effort is, as Robert Heinlein once said, like someone who wants to be a concert pianist, but does not want to practice.
[Spoiler][QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5442890, member: 589823″]I agree to much of the OP but think that there are other factors involved too that get overlooked and create real problems both inside and out of what people consider is ‘science’. “Science” is generally the practice, skill, and logic derived through the act of observing the world. The blur of distinction of this as a part of philosophy as a whole is that it is hard to determine where the role of logic plays (I’m using this generically to also include math and any processes of inference not directly associated with the act of observing itself.) To me, as many others, the concerns most relevant to physics/science beyond practical applications or to localized phenomena are to the applications of the explanations being used to describe reality and the methods used to infer the conclusions accepted, are the significant issue. These are philosophical and go beyond simply just ‘observing’ alone. The degree to contentions between people, scientist or not, is to which matters are to be considered ‘scientific’ and who are the arbiters granted [I]authority[/I] to deem one as qualified or not as being sufficiently wise to draw conclusions that should or should not get noticed. This is then moved into the realm of politics and deserves granting respect to all people on this subject (unless you think ‘science’ is itself is fair to act as a political body in your particular political opinion). As such, when it comes to ‘theories’, we have to not assume that outsiders to the profession of one considered a scientist is simply non-scientific by default. In fact, you also have to consider a distinction between those who are ‘taught’ something regardless of where they are taught (through some institution OR to some external influences) and to those who ‘internalize’ WHAT they are actually learning. You can be an apparently great at absorbing information and utilizing this with skill in practice but be completely unable to appropriately BE actually intelligent, no matter how scientifically qualified or admired en mass by the community.
I have my own ‘theories’. Of course without proof, they are ‘conjecture’. One conjecture I’ll state up front here is that I believe that in all times and places, religion is itself an evolutionary phase of what originated as some ‘science’ of a previous era and that the way the institutes that pass this on through politics, eventually turns that era’s actual [I]science[/I] into a future religion hiding the original wisdom involved. And it is this to which I fear is most disconcerting with respect to even our present paradigm, especially to the science on the extremes (Atomic to Cosmic). An example is how we confuse the distinction of those like Newton or Einstein as ‘scientists’ when they are more appropriately ‘philosophers of science’ and act as the intellectuals who connect the conclusions of practical science to theory through some form of logic and their capacity to explain there ideas to others. Often, the very explanations themselves though are also tied up with ART and while appearing credible, may also have other explanations that either equally or better improve the actual [I]interpretation[/I] of reality within the same logic of the theory but differing in perspective. But because these heroes of science ‘own’ the unique position to demonstrate a novel but REAL logical explanation for some theory, we don’t notice the way the ‘art’ they use often gets equally transferred into their theory without realizing that this factor can contribute to a hidden flaw of the theory. Some person can think of a great explanation to some mathematical model they use that ‘fits’ appropriately to the use of that theory in practice but could be completely false itself. And this logic gets missed by even the most credible of people everywhere.
Thus, just as an initial reflection on this topic, I think we have to not dismiss those speaking of theories, whether one qualifies them or not, as long as they appear to be sincere. The more valid reason why people don’t read another ones ‘theories’ is due to the fact that most are Twitter-minded when it comes to others ideas that don’t default to some conventionally accepted view. It’s as practical as one religious person to opt out of wasting time reading another’s views beyond a Tweet (soundbite) that requires investment to some uncertain nor welcomed opposing view, as it is to those here who may opt not to read some ‘theory’. Also, if one should be asked to “do one’s homework”, while reasonable, it goes without saying. This attitude of a teacher-to-student mentality is the very authoritarianism which points to its politics, not to some wisdom of one scientifically credible.
Science today is at fault where it has become a commodity too. If ‘science’ should be credible to represent universal knowledge, no one would actually ever have to pay for it nor be privileged to some prior respect to its institution prior to demonstrating the same respect to those they are trying to appeal to.[/QUOTE]
[/spoiler]
You couldn’t have said it better.
I agree to much of the OP but think that there are other factors involved too that get overlooked and create real problems both inside and out of what people consider is ‘science’. “Science” is generally the practice, skill, and logic derived through the act of observing the world. The blur of distinction of this as a part of philosophy as a whole is that it is hard to determine where the role of logic plays (I’m using this generically to also include math and any processes of inference not directly associated with the act of observing itself.) To me, as many others, the concerns most relevant to physics/science beyond practical applications or to localized phenomena are to the applications of the explanations being used to describe reality and the methods used to infer the conclusions accepted, are the significant issue. These are philosophical and go beyond simply just ‘observing’ alone. The degree to contentions between people, scientist or not, is to which matters are to be considered ‘scientific’ and who are the arbiters granted [I]authority[/I] to deem one as qualified or not as being sufficiently wise to draw conclusions that should or should not get noticed. This is then moved into the realm of politics and deserves granting respect to all people on this subject (unless you think ‘science’ is itself is fair to act as a political body in your particular political opinion). As such, when it comes to ‘theories’, we have to not assume that outsiders to the profession of one considered a scientist is simply non-scientific by default. In fact, you also have to consider a distinction between those who are ‘taught’ something regardless of where they are taught (through some institution OR to some external influences) and to those who ‘internalize’ WHAT they are actually learning. You can be an apparently great at absorbing information and utilizing this with skill in practice but be completely unable to appropriately BE actually intelligent, no matter how scientifically qualified or admired en mass by the community.
I have my own ‘theories’. Of course without proof, they are ‘conjecture’. One conjecture I’ll state up front here is that I believe that in all times and places, religion is itself an evolutionary phase of what originated as some ‘science’ of a previous era and that the way the institutes that pass this on through politics, eventually turns that era’s actual [I]science[/I] into a future religion hiding the original wisdom involved. And it is this to which I fear is most disconcerting with respect to even our present paradigm, especially to the science on the extremes (Atomic to Cosmic). An example is how we confuse the distinction of those like Newton or Einstein as ‘scientists’ when they are more appropriately ‘philosophers of science’ and act as the intellectuals who connect the conclusions of practical science to theory through some form of logic and their capacity to explain there ideas to others. Often, the very explanations themselves though are also tied up with ART and while appearing credible, may also have other explanations that either equally or better improve the actual [I]interpretation[/I] of reality within the same logic of the theory but differing in perspective. But because these heroes of science ‘own’ the unique position to demonstrate a novel but REAL logical explanation for some theory, we don’t notice the way the ‘art’ they use often gets equally transferred into their theory without realizing that this factor can contribute to a hidden flaw of the theory. Some person can think of a great explanation to some mathematical model they use that ‘fits’ appropriately to the use of that theory in practice but could be completely false itself. And this logic gets missed by even the most credible of people everywhere.
Thus, just as an initial reflection on this topic, I think we have to not dismiss those speaking of theories, whether one qualifies them or not, as long as they appear to be sincere. The more valid reason why people don’t read another ones ‘theories’ is due to the fact that most are Twitter-minded when it comes to others ideas that don’t default to some conventionally accepted view. It’s as practical as one religious person to opt out of wasting time reading another’s views beyond a Tweet (soundbite) that requires investment to some uncertain nor welcomed opposing view, as it is to those here who may opt not to read some ‘theory’. Also, if one should be asked to “do one’s homework”, while reasonable, it goes without saying. This attitude of a teacher-to-student mentality is the very authoritarianism which points to its politics, not to some wisdom of one scientifically credible.
Science today is at fault where it has become a commodity too. If ‘science’ should be credible to represent universal knowledge, no one would actually ever have to pay for it nor be privileged to some prior respect to its institution prior to demonstrating the same respect to those they are trying to appeal to.
[QUOTE=”Laroxe, post: 5442569, member: 555853″]I always think its strange how many scientists criticise non scientists because they don’t know what the scientist knows[/QUOTE]
It’s not because they don’t know stuff. It’s because those particular non-Scientists seem to imagine Science is easy and that they are qualified, on the strength of a few TV programs and half baked websites, to make up hypotheses. Science [B]is[/B] hard and it [B]is[/B] an exclusive club for people who actually know their stuff. Everything else is fantasy and playing. No use getting upset about that. It’s always possible to become member by actually learning some real Science.
The reason is the people once accepted a theory and they don’t care that something might be different. If something really is, then it is better to leave science to the professional scientists.
[QUOTE=”Laroxe, post: 5442569, member: 555853″]I always think its strange how many scientists criticise non scientists because they don’t know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it. [/QUOTE]
I don’t understand the example; you mean construction work? Yes, indeed, scientists are not qualified to do construction work. I’m an engineer moderator of the engineering section: We lock a thread about once a week due to the danger of unqualified construction or building systems engineering (structural, boilers and electrical systems mostly). It doesn’t matter if that person is a scientist and I’m quite certain our scientist moderators are not hypocritical when it comes to the need for proper qualifications in other disciplines.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5442634, member: 6230″]you can take this to the other extreme and gives the impression that scientists are uncertain about everything, and so, what’s the point in listening to them?[/QUOTE]
Yes, that’s why I said it’s a fine line.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5442634, member: 6230″]I strongly hold the view that Helen Quinn has stated, that there ARE things that we can talk about with a very high degree of confidence about their validity.[/QUOTE]
Yes, agreed. The question is how best to convey that to a lay person. Should we say we’re “certain” of these things? Or should we say our information is good enough to act on (even if the stakes are high), even though we’re not, strictly speaking, “certain” of anything? In practical terms, they amount to the same thing, but as you say, they might not convey the same message to the hearer.
Even this would be less of a problem if scientists were careful about conveying different levels of confidence; but they aren’t. For example, many physicists talk about string theory as if it had the same level of confidence as, say, celestial mechanics in the solar system. So when other physicists say that string theory is just speculative and give what look like cogent reasons for doubting it, the impression the lay public gets is that “science” in general, even celestial mechanics in the solar system, is unreliable.
Or, even worse, because it’s only really possible to falsify hypotheses in the hard sciences, the lay public gets the impression that hard science, even celestial mechanics in the solar system, is [I]less[/I] reliable than, say, economics, which does not have anything like the predictive power of any hard science. But it’s also a lot easier in a field like economics to make up plausible-sounding explanations for anything that happens, so it can [I]seem[/I] more reliable to the lay person simply because you can never catch an economist being flat out wrong.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5442627, member: 197831″]Even non-clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt won’t be convincing to the person with foolish certainty. The right thing for scientists to do in response to this is to continue to combat the idea that certainty is possible at all.[/QUOTE]
But you need to thread very carefully in regards to this, because you can take this to the other extreme and gives the impression that scientists are uncertain about everything, and so, what’s the point in listening to them?
I strongly hold the view that Helen Quinn has stated, that there ARE things that we can talk about with a very high degree of confidence about their validity. Otherwise, things just won’t work! It is HOW we state it to another party that do not have the same in-depth understanding of science that is an issue. I strongly subscribe to the idea that “What you say is not what they understand”. You may say and mean something, but that message is often not exactly what the receiver got. In my interaction with the public, this is a very common theme, and it is why I often repeat the message, if it is important enough, via many different ways.
Zz.
[QUOTE=”votingmachine, post: 5442617, member: 559673″]Clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt never seems convincing to the person with foolish certainty.[/QUOTE]
Even non-clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt won’t be convincing to the person with foolish certainty. The right thing for scientists to do in response to this is to continue to combat the idea that certainty is possible at all.
Feynman expressed this eloquently in his talk/essay on the value of science:
[URL]http://www.math.ucla.edu/~mwilliams/pdf/feynman.pdf[/URL]
See in particular from the bottom of page 4 to the end.
There is also a video on YouTube:
[MEDIA=youtube]kbh_6tQ6nm8[/MEDIA]
I agree it’s a fine line: there are some things that we know with such high confidence that “certainty” seems like the best way to describe our state of knowledge in layperson’s terms. But even there, I think it is better to say that we aren’t completely certain of anything–but we can’t just sit and wait and do nothing because of that. We have to live our lives, so we have to act [I]as if[/I] some things are certain even though nothing really is. So the real question should not be whether something is “true”, it should be whether we have enough confidence to act on it in some particular way. Then we can have a more fruitful discussion about how much confidence we need for particular actions–roughly, the greater the stakes of a particular action, the more confidence you need in whatever knowledge you are basing your action on.
Scientists always “fight with their hands tied behind their back”, so to speak. As a scientist, I always have in my head the outside possibility that I am wrong. Quite often that leads to my statements being phrased with the element of doubt, using the scientific phrasing that Helen Quinn elegantly summarizes. Clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt never seems convincing to the person with foolish certainty. The qualifying statements that are part of ordinary science I think are misleading outside of people trained in that language.
And once you introduce miscommunication into a “debate”, it spirals off quickly.
EDIT: I read this and “the outside possibility that I am wrong” comes off as a bit arrogant. I meant to extend the prior comments about scientific certainty and doubt, not sound like a condescending know-it-all.
You know I hate to SOUND like that …
[QUOTE=”Laroxe, post: 5442569, member: 555853″]I always think its strange how many scientists criticise non scientists because they don’t know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it. Of course the fact that many are already in full time employment makes this impractical. I have always considered it part of the remit of people working in science to help people understand their work, particularly if the scientist is in a publicly funded post, paid for by the very people they criticise.
Failure to engage with the public and dismissal of ideas misses an opportunity to use the interest expressed and fuels conspiracy ideation, we then have the situation of people becoming overtly sceptical and failing to support the sciences. Worse still, in people who’s ideas are simply ignored or dismissed, people feel insulted, dislike the associations with those who insult them and actively or passively work against the ideas they promote. Many in science bemoan the fact that so many people adopts what they refer to as irrational beliefs, because the scientists clearly don’t understand that beliefs are more than facts. There is a lot written about the so called “crisis of confidence” in science, for scientists to continue to attribute this to the public’s lack of understanding shows an amazing lack of insight into the role of their own behaviour. Explaining why an idea might be wrong because of some unappreciated basic facts, will often take less than 10 minutes[/QUOTE]
But I find this to be a completely different topic. “Public outreach” is not identical to “hey, tell me what’s wrong with my theory”. If you can’t tell the difference (and if the general public can’t tell the difference) between the two, then we have a problem!
I’ve been involved in public outreach for years and years. I had always welcomed interactions with the public, be it either during one of our open houses, a tour, or even via special events. I consider it my responsibility to inform the tax-paying public what their money is being used for, and why it is important to fund these endeavor. THOSE have never been in question and were never an issue here! Let’s get that VERY clear.
And btw, those of you who complain of scientists not engaging with the public, etc., how many of you have made [b]your own effort[/b] to engage with these scientists? How many of you have attended open houses at the various national labs and universities? How many of you have participated in the many public outreach programs to inform the public about science, and to interact with scientists? This is a [b]two-way street[/b]! You cannot just sit back and whine “gimme, gimme, gimme…” and waiting to be spoon-fed.
The question comes in here when you want to write about, say India, but (i) you have never been there, (ii) you have never spoken to a wide spectrum of the population, (iii) you only learned about it from what you saw on TV! This has nothing to do with physics, or even science. It has everything to do with the irrationality of thinking that a superficial knowledge is sufficient to draw up ANY kind of a valid idea!
I’ve said this many times on here. There is a difference between wanting to learn and asking “Hey, I don’t understand this physics thing. Why does it say so-and-so?” versus “Hey, I’ve come up with something that can explain this and that. Now go find something wrong with it.” We welcome wholeheartedly the former. It is from someone who read something, it didn’t sink it, and wanting to understand more. The latter is lazy person with visions of grandeur.
And while I’m on the subject, here’s the promotion for [URL=’http://www.anl.gov/videos/open-house-2016-promotional-video’]2016 Argonne Open house[/URL], which will be on May 21. Will you attend, or do they need to bring the show right next to your couch?
Zz.
[QUOTE=”Laroxe, post: 5442569, member: 555853″]I always think its strange how many scientists criticise non scientists because they don’t know what the scientist knows[/QUOTE]
While I agree this happens and is not really justified in itself (for the reasons you give), the situation I discussed in the article is a lot more specific than this: it’s a situation where a person is proposing a new theory, and asking scientists to pay attention to it, when they don’t know what the scientists know about the specific field in which the theory is proposed. That’s very different from scientists expecting all nonscientists to know what the scientists know.
[QUOTE=”Laroxe, post: 5442569, member: 555853″]I have always considered it part of the remit of people working in science to help people understand their work, particularly if the scientist is in a publicly funded post, paid for by the very people they criticise.[/QUOTE]
If the scientist’s work is publicly funded, I agree. I’m not sure I agree if the scientist’s work is self-funded or privately funded; but that’s fairly rare these days.
[QUOTE=”Laroxe, post: 5442569, member: 555853″]There is a lot written about the so called “crisis of confidence” in science, for scientists to continue to attribute this to the public’s lack of understanding shows an amazing lack of insight into the role of their own behaviour.[/QUOTE]
I agree that scientists’ behavior plays a role, certainly. I believe I posted about this earlier in this thread: scientists often do not make clear the widely varying levels of confidence in different scientific findings, so the public, instead of being shown a spectrum of ideas, from extremely solid through varying levels of confidence down to extremely speculative, is given a picture of “Science” vs. “Not Science”, period. And since some of the things that got labeled “Science” turn out to be wrong–because they should have been labeled “speculative” to begin with–the public concludes that “Science” is not reliable, because the scientists themselves painted the picture that way.
However, this is a very different problem from the problem I discussed in the article. Here the non-scientists aren’t trying to propose new ideas themselves; they’re just trying to understand the ideas the scientists already have. Scientists have, IMO, an obligation to present those ideas honestly, and not claim the authority of “Science”–i.e., knowledge you ignore at your peril–for ideas that don’t deserve it.
[QUOTE=”Laroxe, post: 5442569, member: 555853″]Explaining why an idea might be wrong because of some unappreciated basic facts, will often take less than 10 minutes[/QUOTE]
This sounds good in theory, but it is strongly falsified by actual experience in forums where this is tried–for example, here on PF. Most people who fit the profile I described in the article (and again above)–i.e., people who are proposing their own new idea in a scientific field in which they have not taken the time to understand what is already known–simply don’t listen when you tell them the simple unappreciated basic facts that make their idea wrong. Instead, they double down, saying that they’re not being listened to because scientists are closed-minded and don’t want to consider new ideas. And the discussion thread goes on for hundreds of posts–unless someone like a moderator here on PF shuts it down. And even then we often get complaints by PM that we have shut down the discussion prematurely without giving fair consideration to the person’s new idea.
I always think its strange how many scientists criticise non scientists because they don’t know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it. Of course the fact that many are already in full time employment makes this impractical. I have always considered it part of the remit of people working in science to help people understand their work, particularly if the scientist is in a publicly funded post, paid for by the very people they criticise.
Failure to engage with the public and dismissal of ideas misses an opportunity to use the interest expressed and fuels conspiracy ideation, we then have the situation of people becoming overtly sceptical and failing to support the sciences. Worse still, in people who’s ideas are simply ignored or dismissed, people feel insulted, dislike the associations with those who insult them and actively or passively work against the ideas they promote. Many in science bemoan the fact that so many people adopts what they refer to as irrational beliefs, because the scientists clearly don’t understand that beliefs are more than facts. There is a lot written about the so called “crisis of confidence” in science, for scientists to continue to attribute this to the public’s lack of understanding shows an amazing lack of insight into the role of their own behaviour. Explaining why an idea might be wrong because of some unappreciated basic facts, will often take less than 10 minutes
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5442045, member: 197831″]This sounds good on the surface, but then you say this:
So how do we tell when someone no longer deserves to be dismissed and has proven that they merit at least a cursory listen? The position I am taking is, we tell by seeing if they understand what is already known in the field under discussion, and can explain how their new idea relates to what is already known. If they can’t demonstrate that, they don’t merit a listen.
The PF rules on acceptable sources, which I referenced in the article, are an attempt to at least approximate the above. Note that the rules are not hard and fast; they don’t say nobody without credentials will ever be listened to, period. But having credentials does make it easier to demonstrate that you understand what is already known.
An approximation is the best we’re going to be able to do in any case, because, as I said before, there isn’t enough time to consider every idea. We have to have a quick heuristic filter to make things manageable. If you are saying credentials aren’t the right quick heuristic filter, what do you think is?[/QUOTE]
I won’t pretend to moderate, you and your peers do an excellent job already. As a mere poster, It is not my place to lament a poster for not adhering to forum rules.
As a reader, I don’t want to be in the habit of avoiding every post that comes from someone who hasn’t yet proven themselves, at the risk of missing that rare one that does make sense. I have that luxury as I don’t have to wear both hats.
[QUOTE=”Wee-Lamm, post: 5442060, member: 577367″]you moderate well … from what I’ve seen. :-)[/QUOTE]
Thanks! :smile:
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5442049, member: 197831″]Forum moderators often don’t have that option. We have to try to maintain an acceptable signal to noise ratio. That means we have to do more than just not respond to posts that don’t deserve a response; we have to draw a line beyond which we actively discourage such posts instead of just ignoring them.
Some posts are simply too vague or incoherent to even argue against. Sometimes there is no way to respond except to just inform the person that the post doesn’t meet PF’s rules, period.[/QUOTE]
I agree, you moderate well … from what I’ve seen. :-)
[QUOTE=”Wee-Lamm, post: 5441979, member: 577367″]If we don’t feel the thought deserves a response, even if only due to lack of credentials, we can simply not respond.[/QUOTE]
Forum moderators often don’t have that option. We have to try to maintain an acceptable signal to noise ratio. That means we have to do more than just not respond to posts that don’t deserve a response; we have to draw a line beyond which we actively discourage such posts instead of just ignoring them.
[QUOTE=”Wee-Lamm, post: 5441979, member: 577367″]If we do respond, we should argue against the thought and not their having proven they’ve earned the right to present it.[/QUOTE]
Some posts are simply too vague or incoherent to even argue against. Sometimes there is no way to respond except to just inform the person that the post doesn’t meet PF’s rules, period.
[QUOTE=”Wee-Lamm, post: 5441976, member: 577367″]I think though, that we each should be at least minutely open to ponder positions we have not considered before and not merely dismiss the thought because the poser lacks credentials.[/QUOTE]
This sounds good on the surface, but then you say this:
[QUOTE=”Wee-Lamm, post: 5441976, member: 577367″]Most people do deserve to be dismissed, for the most part, until they have proven they merit at least a cursory listen.[/QUOTE]
So how do we tell when someone no longer deserves to be dismissed and has proven that they merit at least a cursory listen? The position I am taking is, we tell by seeing if they understand what is already known in the field under discussion, and can explain how their new idea relates to what is already known. If they can’t demonstrate that, they don’t merit a listen.
The PF rules on acceptable sources, which I referenced in the article, are an attempt to at least approximate the above. Note that the rules are not hard and fast; they don’t say nobody without credentials will ever be listened to, period. But having credentials does make it easier to demonstrate that you understand what is already known.
An approximation is the best we’re going to be able to do in any case, because, as I said before, there isn’t enough time to consider every idea. We have to have a quick heuristic filter to make things manageable. If you are saying credentials aren’t the right quick heuristic filter, what do you think is?
[QUOTE=”votingmachine, post: 5440885, member: 559673″]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]
Yes, but that should apply equally if we choose to respond. If we don’t feel the thought deserves a response, even if only due to lack of credentials, we can simply not respond. If we do respond, we should argue against the thought and not their having proven they’ve earned the right to present it.
You are right though, OP did not ask why their theories were being openly dismissed, which is different from being ignored. :-)
[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. 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]
I agree entirely, and I was not suggesting that every notion should be examined nor that every crackpot deserves to be heard at all, let alone fairly. I think though, that we each should be at least minutely open to ponder positions we have not considered before and not merely dismiss the thought because the poser lacks credentials. Most people do deserve to be dismissed, for the most part, until they have proven they merit at least a cursory listen.
If we are knowledgeable of a subject and we should feel the need to respond at all, we should respond only to the thought presented, regardless of who forwarded the notion. I do also agree, this forum has much more to offer than to be a vetting arena for new theories.
Thankfully, I don’t have any of those myself and I’m learning to stick to subject matter I am knowledgeable in, typically from a practical perspective as opposed to purely academic. :-)
[QUOTE=”fundamentally, post: 5441340, member: 257926″]I think that I understand a lot more about the foundations of physical reality than most others do.[/QUOTE]
As I just posted in response to mfb, whatever actual issues you think you see with quantum theory, and existing science in general, are off topic for this thread; you can open a separate thread (with the caveats I gave in my post just now) if you would like to discuss them.
With regard to the topic of this thread, if you are satisfied with posting your work for all to see in a place on the Internet that will do so (in your case, vixra), and letting people respond to it however they choose, and accepting that other forums, such as PF, might not be open to much discussion of your work because it is not accepted science, then you are not one of the people I was talking about in my article.
[QUOTE=”mfb, post: 5441572, member: 405866″]Which contradictions do you see in quantum field theory?[/QUOTE]
I would say that question is off topic for this thread; if fundamentally wants to open a separate thread in the Quantum Physics forum to discuss this issue (and bearing in mind the PF rules regarding personal theories), that is up to him.
[QUOTE=”Vanadium 50, post: 5441478, member: 110252″]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]
Forgive my imprecision. By “traditional path”, I mean having to go to college in person. I am in college for a math based degree, but one can’t exactly earn a physics degree online. Online is the only tenable option for me, however, due to a bunch of reasons. Note that I’m willing to put in the effort to study physics on my own.
From the outside it appears that the only way one can network is by going to college in person, however. If one can’t network, one has no hope of ever being able to do viable reaserch, no matter how much study they do. See my problem?