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=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]Second, [B]I don’t need to read anything[/B] about the Bible, or some cult or new movement that postulates ideas or behaviors that violate the laws of physics, or common sense, before I can comment on the movement, it’s literature or it’s followers. If somebody claims they can channel spirits and predict the future, I am under no obligation of any kind to read their “2000 page holy mantra channeled literature” to debunk them in a general sense. Same for any other spiritual or religious movement.[/QUOTE]There is a huge difference between “speaking about the bible” and “speaking about claims made in the bible”. The first one is about the origin of the book, how the stories there emerged and got propagated until they were written down, and so on. To discuss this, it is really useful to read the bible, or literature about the bible. Otherwise you cannot follow discussions about it. The second thing is about claims made in the bible. You don’t need to read the bible to discuss the plausibility of Jesus walking over water, of course. Although it helps to know how the bible was put together to discuss how that description in the book could have emerged.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]It’s that for every really good idea, theory or inspiration, there are just so many that are TimeCube level, or worse, wrong in ways that are time consuming to explain, and even then you won’t understand why you are wrong.[/QUOTE]Without expertise in the field, everything will be at Timecube level.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]Third, the article states “[URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/#top’]Here at PF we have rules about this[/URL]”, but there is no link to the source. Where are the rules about new theories? I didn’t even know there was such a rule. Much less rules about it. See my first point.[/QUOTE]
The rules are required reading when you first join the forums.
[URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/[/URL]
”
[I][B]Non-mainstream theories:[/B]
Generally, in the forums we do [B]not[/B] allow the following:[/I]
[LIST]
[*][I]Discussion of theories that appear only on personal web sites, self-published books, etc.[/I]
[*][I]Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion[/I]
[*][I]Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context[/I]
[*][I]Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science[/I]
[*][I]Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.[/I]
[*][I]Philosophical discussions are permitted only at the discretion of the mentors and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal[/I]
[/LIST]
I received an email with a link to this topic. The headline was/is
[URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/’]Physics Forums – The Fusion of Science and Community[/URL]
[SIZE=5][B]Fascinating Science Discussions from Last Week[/B]
[/SIZE]
I read the article, then I read some of the topic, trying to decide if I should respond. I came across the following [QUOTE=”Drakkith, post: 5445112, member: 272035″]Well, if you’re going to speak on the subject matter of any book, including the Bible, it tends to help if you’ve actually read it.[/QUOTE]
Several things came to mind. First, this topic is under [URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/general-physics.111/’]GENERAL PHYSICS[/URL] but does not appear to be a physics topic at all. It’s either psychology or forum rules or philosophy, talking about science and human nature, but not physics. (That’s just my observation, I have no peer reviewed sources published in mainstream journals to support it, it’s just my observation of the topic so far)
Second, [B]I don’t need to read anything[/B] about the Bible, or some cult or new movement that postulates ideas or behaviors that violate the laws of physics, or common sense, before I can comment on the movement, it’s literature or it’s followers. If somebody claims they can channel spirits and predict the future, I am under no obligation of any kind to read their “2000 page holy mantra channeled literature” to debunk them in a general sense. Same for any other spiritual or religious movement.
That’s not physics? That was my first point.
Third, the article states “[URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/#top’]Here at PF we have rules about this[/URL]”, but there is no link to the source. Where are the rules about new theories? I didn’t even know there was such a rule. Much less rules about it. See my first point.
Fourth, I was wondering about the comments on the article page and here, so I posted, answering that question. The two are the same.
Fifth, and most important.
[URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory’]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[/URL]
My experience with “personal theories” is very limited, since as you say, interest is very little. However, the one that caught my attention 8 years ago is still being discussed (argued as well), and turned out to be a correct theory, with experiments and evidence to back it up. It’s one of the most fascinating things, and it all happened online in forums. The places that had rules and didn’t allow discussions to develop (for whatever reasons) all ended up missing out.
This certainly doesn’t mean anything other than what I just stated. Most new things are crackpots, but that does not mean every new thing is a crackpot idea. Just by the nature of things, a new idea will usually sound crazy, all the more so to any expert in a field. That doesn’t mean it is.
Time and time again we see in the history of science that almost every new idea that actually was a new idea, is dismissed, attacked, mocked or just ignored. This is the paradigm changing ones, not your ordinary iPhone or Facebook idea. Billion dollar ideas of course are also mocked or ignored, but the inventor often has the satisfaction of laughing all the way to the bank. YouTube comes to mind.
Back to the question of “why we don’t care about your crackpot idea” .
It’s that for every really good idea, theory or inspiration, there are just so many that are TimeCube level, or worse, wrong in ways that are time consuming to explain, and even then you won’t understand why you are wrong.
What’s the relationship between this comment thread and the forum thread?
edit> never mind. I figured it out by experiment.
Whether intentional or not, this thread has been a real [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_%28computing%29′]honeypot[/URL] this week. Life imitates art… :wideeyed:
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445107, member: 589823″]No, actually I’ve experimented with this very assumption. Even supposedly intellectual people are flawed to default to emotional/political biases. A bad title for a thread or a paper, is enough for a ‘referee’ or moderator to eliminate without reading it themselves.[/QUOTE]
Well, a bad title is a hallmark sign of a bad paper. One doesn’t submit a paper to Nature entitled, “Stuff Electrons Do” if one actually wants to be taken seriously. I don’t consider this a political or an emotional bias.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445107, member: 589823″]What I think is severely NOT appropriately understood is that just because someone is potentially a non-scientist with potential radical ideas, they are not always as stupid to already know that ‘homework’ is a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately the evidence is against you. This is absolutely the case for almost every single instance of a personal theory I’ve ever dealt with or seen here at PF and I’m confident the other mentors share similar experiences to my own.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445107, member: 589823″]The question should be why some ‘outsider’ should not be privileged to their own skepticism and/or posit some novel idea even if they could be mistaken without being insulted by others’ expectations of them to be inadequately prepared or insufficiently qualified up front.[/QUOTE]
That has already been answered, abundantly, in this thread. Please make more of an effort to actually read the thread and to understand it instead of continually bringing up the same question that has already been answered.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445107, member: 589823″]The act of people erring is precisely a function of processes in intellectual activity. But disrespecting the ‘guest’ only motivates them to close off their own trust in those insulting them with GOOD reason: they have an actual ‘scientific’ experience (as an ‘experiment’) that demonstrates the hypocrisy of some to feign authority on the skill of being ‘scientific’, but proving they may not, when they demand authoritative blind respect (Faith) and/or redirection to other sources first (like demanding one read another’s sacred texts)! To show credibility only requires being willing participants in the process of learning with the respect towards them they’d hope could be reflected by their own example.[/QUOTE]
It appears you have no experience in dealing with people who have personal theories then. Or with science. Or with “sacred texts”. In fact, I find literally everything you’ve written in this thread to be so convoluted and unchained from reality that I don’t feel you have any idea what you’re talking about. At all.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]The ‘burden’ though when people GO to forums should be on par with each other in respect.[/QUOTE]
That burden is not shared equally between both parties. That is one of the main problems. Experience here at PF has given us overwhelming evidence that, in the context of the topic of this thread, the burden is usually placed almost entirely in the lap of the scientist.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]That is, unless a site is intended to dictate and not have open dialogue, [I]authority[/I] is itself moot. The point of open discussion is to both share one’s views and participate with each other to learn.[/QUOTE]
If you want to discuss PF itself, then all you need to do is read the first rule on the[URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/’] Terms and Rules[/URL] page:
[QUOTE=”Greg Bernhardt, post: 66018, member: 1″]We wish to discuss mainstream science.That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.[/QUOTE]
PF itself is NOT a forum to discuss anything and everything with no regard to authority. It is NOT a place for the equal sharing of ideas between those who know science and those who don’t, just like a forum on RC Racing is not a place for me to go and expect my novice ideas to be given equal weight to those more experienced than I (LiPo batteries inferior to NiMH?). The fact that we wish to discuss mainstream science requires that we confine ourselves to using other sources as references, and since mainstream science is so overwhelmingly complex, that requires that we occasionally have to use an “[URL=’http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority’]argument from authority[/URL],” in a logically valid way as rational wiki puts it:
[I]An [B]argument from authority[/B] refers to two kinds of logical arguments:
A [URL=’http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Validity’]logically valid[/URL] argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more [URL=’http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Credentials’]authoritative source(s)[/URL], whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue.
A [URL=’http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy’]logically fallacious[/URL] argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)[/I]
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]And so the same can be said of those who also assert ‘authority’ here: if one is supposedly intelligent or qualified, they must defend themselves within the present argument rather than diverting others to go elsewhere to do their ‘homework’.[/QUOTE]
Except that the average person doesn’t know enough to even understand any “defense”, let alone construct a valid criticism of any topic in modern science. It’s like me criticizing a professional quarterback (a position in american football if you aren’t from the US) despite knowing next to nothing about the position or the game beyond what I remember from playing it as a kid.
In any case, this is rarely a problem for the average poster here at PF unless they are asking a question with a very complicated answer and have little knowledge of the topic. I mean, if you’re asking about the complex conjugate root theorem despite not even knowing what an imaginary number is, then there’s little help that other posters can give you since it would usually require several undergrad math classes just to cover the basic topics you need to know in order to understand the theorem.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]I know what I know and can defend it. But I find it odd and absurdly presumptuous that anyone even with the best credentials via some institute should expect they aren’t burdened equally to prove what they know in context of a discussion in practice if only to prove their worth.[/QUOTE]
Then it appears you’ve never had to explain something very complicated and abstract to someone else who knows nothing about it. Especially to someone who’s already skeptical of it.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]Assuming anyone go elsewhere is of the disturbing kind I equated with those religious apologists to demand one read the Bible first in order to qualify speaking of it.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you’re going to speak on the subject matter of any book, including the Bible, it tends to help if you’ve actually read it. And if you haven’t, then you should probably read an extensive number of reviews or cliff-notes, just to ensure you aren’t getting biased information. And if you’re not going to do that, then you should probably at least listen to a number of people who have given the book several in-depth reads and possess the required skills to understand and explain it through several different viewpoints and contexts. And if not that, then I’d recommend at least take a class where you discuss various excerpts of the book, what context they were written under, and how they may or may not apply to today’s society. If you haven’t done any of the above, it’s probably better for you to just listen when someone talks about it rather than to speak on it (except where said subject matter or related subject matter can also be studied in other books. In which you should probably have done one of the above about this other book).
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]But the very investment requires as much justification as the OPs claim of why others DON’T read someone’s theories, whether they be potentially worthy or not…..PRACTICALITY![/QUOTE]
Indeed. It requires a substantial investment of time and effort to understand the details of any subject or topic, including science. Which is why when I ask someone about a topic I know next to nothing about, I don’t expect my involvement to be anything more than asking a number of questions which only an occasional equal discourse if we reach something I am familiar with. But that’s if I actually want to learn about the topic, of course. If I don’t, well, I’d probably make false accusations based on my rudimentary understanding of the topic and then berate the other person when I can’t understand what they’ve said. Or if I don’t believe them. Or if I disagree with them. Or if they make any criticism of my own ideas. (all of which happen frequently here at PF)
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else’s ‘formal’ credentials. Do you follow?[/QUOTE]
I can’t speak for V50, but I certainly don’t follow. I don’t feel that you’ve adequately looked into this topic nor do I feel that you’ve presented a valid, logical argument that should be taken seriously by anyone.
[QUOTE=”Isaac0427, post: 5445086, member: 552304″]No good scientist puts faith in any theory before understanding it and it’s proofs. No good scientist, however, is spectical of a theory before understanding it and its proofs. You need to learn something before judging it. And by learn it, I mean know the proofs used to prove that it is accurate. If you can’t mathematically criticize the proof, you can’t criticize the theory (without an experiment). The problem we are talking about here is the fact that people undermine a theory that they claim is incomplete or straight out incorrect without pointing out valid flaws in the theory and/or the proofs of the theory.[/QUOTE]
No, actually I’ve experimented with this very assumption. Even supposedly intellectual people are flawed to default to emotional/political biases. A bad title for a thread or a paper, is enough for a ‘referee’ or moderator to eliminate without reading it themselves.
What I think is severely NOT appropriately understood is that just because someone is potentially a non-scientist with potential radical ideas, they are not always as stupid to already know that ‘homework’ is a good thing. (It’s why those religious apologists ask that others invest the effort to read their scriptures first with EQUAL validity) It treats these people by default as idiots instead of reversing the role to presume them ‘innocent’ up front. The question should be why some ‘outsider’ should not be privileged to their own skepticism and/or posit some novel idea even if they could be mistaken without being insulted by others’ expectations of them to be inadequately prepared or insufficiently qualified up front. The act of people erring is precisely a function of processes in intellectual activity. But disrespecting the ‘guest’ only motivates them to close off their own trust in those insulting them with GOOD reason: they have an actual ‘scientific’ experience (as an ‘experiment’) that demonstrates the hypocrisy of some to feign authority on the skill of being ‘scientific’, but proving they may not, when they demand authoritative blind respect (Faith) and/or redirection to other sources first (like demanding one read another’s sacred texts)! To show credibility only requires being willing participants in the process of learning with the respect towards them they’d hope could be reflected by their own example.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else’s ‘formal’ credentials. Do you follow?[/QUOTE]
No good scientist puts faith in any theory before understanding it and it’s proofs. No good scientist, however, is spectical of a theory before understanding it and its proofs. You need to learn something before judging it. And by learn it, I mean know the proofs used to prove that it is accurate. If you can’t mathematically criticize the proof, you can’t criticize the theory (without an experiment). The problem we are talking about here is the fact that people undermine a theory that they claim is incomplete or straight out incorrect without pointing out valid flaws in the theory and/or the proofs of the theory.
[QUOTE=”Scott Mayers, post: 5445063, member: 589823″]I know what I know and can defend it.[/QUOTE]Then publish it.
It is [b]that[/b] easy.
[QUOTE=”Vanadium 50, post: 5443715, member: 110252″]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]
Who says I personally haven’t? The ‘burden’ though when people GO to forums should be on par with each other in respect. That is, unless a site is intended to dictate and not have open dialogue, [I]authority[/I] is itself moot. The point of open discussion is to both share one’s views and participate with each other to learn. And so the same can be said of those who also assert ‘authority’ here: if one is supposedly intelligent or qualified, they must defend themselves within the present argument rather than diverting others to go elsewhere to do their ‘homework’.
I know what I know and can defend it. But I find it odd and absurdly presumptuous that anyone even with the best credentials via some institute should expect they aren’t burdened equally to prove what they know in context of a discussion in practice if only to prove their worth. Assuming anyone go elsewhere is of the disturbing kind I equated with those religious apologists to demand one read the Bible first in order to qualify speaking of it. But the very investment requires as much justification as the OPs claim of why others DON’T read someone’s theories, whether they be potentially worthy or not…..PRACTICALITY!
The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else’s ‘formal’ credentials. Do you follow?
[QUOTE=”anorlunda, post: 5444896, member: 455902″]That’s one definition. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism[/URL] gives three definitions. I was thinking of #1, and you are thinking of #3.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure I think elitism applies here. From wiki’s article on elite (linked to in your first definition): [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite[/URL]
[I][B]Elite[/B], sometimes “Élite” is a small group of powerful people in [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_theory’]political[/URL] and [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology’]sociological[/URL] theory, such as an oligarchy, that controls a [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality’]disproportionate amount of wealth[/URL] or [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power’]political power[/URL] in society. This group holds a superior position among the ordinary people and exercises greater [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality)’]privilege[/URL] than the rest of the population.[/I]
From a brief reading of this article I don’t think the term applies to scientists in general, as most of the people considered “elites” (at least here in the US) are political leaders, military leaders, or corporate owners. Additionally, the term appears to be used in the sense of “people who govern” or have vastly disproportionate social or economic privileges. Seeing as how scientists come from all walks of life, from many different institutions, and rarely have any power outside of terrorizing their grad students, I don’t think any of the three uses of elitism apply.
However, my knowledge of all of this is extremely rudimentary, so I could be talking out of an orifice that would probably be censored if I were to say it.
[QUOTE=”anorlunda, post: 5444896, member: 455902″]I didn’t accuse you of elitism.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know. I was responding to your statement that elitism is strongly discouraged in the USA. You’re right that I was using that term in the third sense you gave.
The first definition, though, is the more interesting one. I think you were saying that elitism in this sense is also discouraged in the USA, and I think that’s the case to an extent. But as I said before, earning your position is (or at least used to be) encouraged in the USA, and that kind of looks like encouraging elitism in the first sense. So I think the overall US attitude here is ambivalent.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5444781, member: 197831″]Elitism in the sense of people having privileges that they haven’t earned[/QUOTE]
That’s one definition. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism[/URL] gives three definitions. I was thinking of #1, and you are thinking of #3.
[QUOTE]
[LIST=1]
[*][B]Elitism[/B] is the belief or attitude that some individuals who form an [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite’]elite[/URL]—a select group of people with a certain [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry’]ancestry[/URL], intrinsic [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_(philosophy)’]quality[/URL] or worth, high [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellect’]intellect[/URL], [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth’]wealth[/URL], specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
[*]Alternatively, the term [I]elitism[/I] may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. Oppositions of elitism include [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-elitism’]anti-elitism[/URL], [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism’]egalitarianism[/URL], [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism’]populism[/URL] and [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_theory’]political theory[/URL] of[URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_theory)’]pluralism[/URL]. [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory’]Elite theory[/URL] is the sociological or political science analysis of elite influence in society: elite theorists regard pluralism as a utopian ideal.
[*]’Elitism’ also refers to situations in which an individual assumes special ‘privileges’ and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves.
[/LIST]
[/QUOTE]
Note that I didn’t accuse you of elitism. I said:
[QUOTE=”anorlunda, post: 5444704, member: 455902″]On the other hand, the line between the scientist’s frustration and elitism is very thin.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5444561, member: 6230″][URL]http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/02/if-you-cant-explain-it-to-your.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
Nice article!
Another good counterexample would be a story that Kip Thorne relates in [I]Black Holes and Time Warps[/I]. Oppenheimer had just started teaching as a professor at Caltech, and gave his first lecture. It was, as Thorne describes it, a “tour de force”, covering multiple subjects and obviously showing a deep mastery of physics. But it did have one flaw. After the lecture was over and the students had left, Richard Tolman, who had sat in, told Oppenheimer, “Well, Robert, that was beautiful but I didn’t understand a damned word.”
[QUOTE=”anorlunda, post: 5444704, member: 455902″]Elitism is strongly discouraged in the USA.[/QUOTE]
Elitism in the sense of people having privileges that they haven’t earned, yes. But even if we allow that scientists’ grasp of their fields is a “privilege”, it’s one that they [I]have[/I] earned, so the charge of “elitism” doesn’t apply.
In fact, having to earn your position, in any field, used to be strongly [I]encouraged[/I] in the USA. I’m not so sure it is now, but that’s a whole other discussion.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444565, member: 591032″]Touché, though I would argue there may well be some asymmetry to that dialogue, rightly so, we have a tendency to judge the world by our own horizons and as such believe everyone knows more or less what we do, it is extremely frustrating spoon feeding information.[/QUOTE]
It is a difficult case because it is an exception to the normal standards of egalitarianism. In everyday life (I like to think of a political town meeting in my state of Vermont), we are taught to treat everyone with respect as peers. It is an American ideal.
[IMG]https://dennismaplanningdept.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/dennis-energy-smart-town-meeting-5-5-09.jpg[/IMG]
In the case of scientific forums, the scientists are frustrated and weary of the burden of having to point out why so many people’s ideas about science are not valid. With more effort, the idea holders could learn by themselves why their idea is not good, but they would rather put the burden on scientists to disprove it over and over and over again. That’s unfair, and reaction to that unfairness is what I believe the Insights article is about. The scientists have ample justification for rejecting egalitarianism in scientific discussions. As PeterDonis said, people with pet theories should carry the burden of putting in the effort of digging deeper before sharing the theories with others.
On the other hand, the line between the scientist’s frustration and elitism is very thin. Elitism is strongly discouraged in the USA. Navigating that thin line is especially difficult when scientific and general topics are mixed. PF has both scientific and general discussion forums. IMO, very different norms of etiquette (i.e. who is qualified to have a valid opinion) should apply in general discussion, yet the same people hop back and forth between both kinds of forums frequently, making it difficult for everyone to keep a double standard in mind.
PF also has engineering forums which are halfway between science forums and general discussion. Engineers have skills at problem solving, and finding the best way to do things. But in many cases, the topics should be judged on a sliding scale of better/worse opinions rather than binary choice valid/invalid theories. Engineers may be more skilled than laymen (and scientists) at finding better ways to do stuff, but they don’t claim a monopoly on it. IMO, two of the best engineers of the 20th century had no engineering education. They were [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Concordia’]Charles Concordia[/URL] (who had only a high school education) and [URL=’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi’]Enrico Fermi [/URL](who was a physicist).
[QUOTE=”houlahound, post: 5444659, member: 551046″]Enzyme are what physicist study??[/QUOTE]
Ah well, you got me, I’ll give a more relevant example next time
Enzyme are what physicist study??
[QUOTE=”houlahound, post: 5444657, member: 551046″]Enzyme??
What does the “P” stand for in PF??[/QUOTE]
PF = Physics Forum?
Enzyme??
What does the “P” stand for in PF??
Alright here’s what I think, I try to respect PF rules being that this isn’t really my forum. But sometimes I come up with questions. I can have a valid question such as why is 1+1=2 and someone would kindly say that there are two things represented by a number 2. Sometimes I produce a question as an improvement(why can’t enzyme be produced in such a way), it could be that this enzyme has never been produced in such a way that makes this way of production a theory, but it is a theory that is generated based on logical assumptions from sources like Wikipedia, well I try to follow other valid sources but they are generally harder to find. But hey, this can be an idea for improvement, thousand of industries might be looking at me for investment that I came up with. But still, a rule is a rule, and I would respect it if PF consider a challenging question like this a theory then I would try not to post these type of questions(someone can tell me whether these type of questions are considered theories or not). Let’s not forget that people used to assume earth to be the center instead of the sun, not that I would die for my theory but you know, it is something that needs to be corrected
Imagine how much work would get done if every professional researcher had to sit down with every random shmo and explain to them why their theory suckedazz.
If we hypothetically assume that we replace gravity with the force of electromagnetism, such that mercury would be negatively charged and the sun would be positively charged, would it then predict the same discrepancy?
[QUOTE=”jbriggs444, post: 5444614, member: 422467″]I thought that the purpose of this thread was to comment on an insights post rather than to act out a worked example.[/QUOTE]
Apologies, got lost along the way though it all stemmed from the reluctance of fields to accept outsiders.
I thought that the purpose of this thread was to comment on an insights post rather than to act out a worked example.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5444612, member: 6230″]You’re missing the point, and the points of MANY other posts here. There are ALTERNATE and opposing “philosophical” views that you been spewing that you appear to be ignorant of! You seem to think that what you know is IT. Not only are you not aware of LQG and other issues, you also seem to be, as Kathy Griffin puts it, “proud of your aggressive ignorance”.
Zz.[/QUOTE]
I’ll take that as a no. Personally if I am going to make an assertion I would bet my bottom dollar.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444608, member: 591032″]wanna bet a years salary?[/QUOTE]
You’re missing the point, and the points of MANY other posts here. There are ALTERNATE and opposing “philosophical” views that you been spewing that you appear to be ignorant of! You seem to think that what you know is IT. Not only are you not aware of LQG and other issues, you also seem to be, as Kathy Griffin puts it, “proud of your aggressive ignorance”.
Zz.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5444604, member: 6230″]Why are you talking to yourself? I can provide for you a side-walk psychoanalysis on this disease.
I never claim I did. And if you ask many condensed matter physicists such as Phil Anderson, Bob Laughlin, they’ll argue that there is no such thing as a “theory of everything”. Do a search on this forum where this has been discussed at length.
Zz.[/QUOTE]
wanna bet a years salary?
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444598, member: 591032″]If you did you would have a Nobel prize[/quote]
Why are you talking to yourself? I can provide for you a side-walk psychoanalysis on this disease.
[quote]Word salad? I’ll take that as a no, because if you did you would have a Nobel prize for unified field theory, uniting quantum mechanics and have a complete framework to explain everything we see. The theory of everything right?[/QUOTE]
I never claim I did. And if you ask many condensed matter physicists such as Phil Anderson, Bob Laughlin, they’ll argue that there is no such thing as a “theory of everything”. Do a search on this forum where this has been discussed at length.
Zz.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444598, member: 591032″]If you did you would have a Nobel prize
Word salad? I’ll take that as a no, because if you did you would have a Nobel prize for unified field theory, uniting quantum mechanics and have a complete framework to explain everything we see. The theory of everything right?[/QUOTE]
The problem with quantum mechanics and relativity is that both are taken out of context, a snapshot if you will. That’s not how the universe works unfortunately. Just because you see probabilistic data, does not mean you have a probabilistic cause, it just means you have an incomplete dataset
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444582, member: 591032″]You really don’t know how force is propagated do you? I mean an actual mechanism, not gluons etc, m theory is entirely compatible with quantum gravity.[/QUOTE]
If you did you would have a Nobel prize
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5444592, member: 6230″]This is stupid. Physics just doesn’t say “what goes up must come down”. It must also say “when and where it comes down”. It is a QUANTITATIVE field. While YOU think you can get away with hand-waving argument, physics can’t! People’s LIVES depend on such exactness.
I had just finished explaining to my students why it is insufficient and ambiguous to simply state that “as current increases, the magnetic field increases”. This tells very little (what goes up, must come down). Does it increase linearly, exponentially, quadratically? The [B]mathematics[/B] that you so have a phobia towards is the one that produces the clearest description of ANY physical phenomenon. This is how we experimentally verify anything, something that is practically required for any idea and concepts to be accepted to be valid.
It appears that you’ve missed this important part.
Zz.[/QUOTE]
Word salad? I’ll take that as a no, because if you did you would have a Nobel prize for unified field theory, uniting quantum mechanics and have a complete framework to explain everything we see. The theory of everything right?
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444586, member: 591032″]I mean without the use of mathematics to describe it.[/QUOTE]
This is stupid. Physics just doesn’t say “what goes up must come down”. It must also say “when and where it comes down”. It is a QUANTITATIVE field. While YOU think you can get away with hand-waving argument, physics can’t! People’s LIVES depend on such exactness.
I had just finished explaining to my students why it is insufficient and ambiguous to simply state that “as current increases, the magnetic field increases”. This tells very little (what goes up, must come down). Does it increase linearly, exponentially, quadratically? The [b]mathematics[/b] that you so have a phobia towards is the one that produces the clearest description of ANY physical phenomenon. This is how we experimentally verify anything, something that is practically required for any idea and concepts to be accepted to be valid.
It appears that you’ve missed this important part.
Zz.
Question: Let us consider that hypothetically that the sun was positively charged and Mercury negatively charged and attracted each other with the same force as Gravity. And we assume further that gravity is not present. Would we not predict the same discrepancy?
If the answer is yes, isn’t it wrong to say that GR accounts for the fundamental difference here, and that it is instead SR that accounts for this fundamental new understanding?
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444582, member: 591032″]You really don’t know how force is propagated do you? I mean an actual mechanism, not gluons etc, m theory is entirely compatible with quantum gravity.[/QUOTE]
I mean without the use of mathematics to describe it.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5444579, member: 6230″]That is nothing but a word salad. You are also basing it on a theory that hasn’t been verified experimentally. It also isn’t unique, because someone in the loop quantum gravity camp will argue against that picture.
This is what happens when one has only a superficial knowledge of something.
Zz.[/QUOTE]
You really don’t know how force is propagated do you? I mean an actual mechanism, not gluons etc, m theory is entirely compatible with quantum gravity.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444572, member: 591032″]Yeah it was me, I was saying my previous quote was oversimplified, I’m comfortable with it. The universe is complex, not complicated, lots of simple parts combining to create advanced dynamical systems, how else does string/m theory build the universe we see if not through oversimplification? An oscillating string, producing mass, spin and charge? Do I misunderstand or is that not the underpinning of the mass equivalence equation?[/QUOTE]
That is nothing but a word salad. You are also basing it on a theory that hasn’t been verified experimentally. It also isn’t unique, because someone in the loop quantum gravity camp will argue against that picture.
This is what happens when one has only a superficial knowledge of something.
Zz.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5444561, member: 6230″][URL]http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/02/if-you-cant-explain-it-to-your.html[/URL]
I also find it hilarious that you accused someone else of making an “oversimplification”, when that is ALL that you’ve been doing on here.
Zz.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it was me, I was saying my previous quote was oversimplified, I’m comfortable with it. The universe is complex, not complicated, lots of simple parts combining to create advanced dynamical systems, how else does string/m theory build the universe we see if not through oversimplification? An oscillating string, producing mass, spin and charge? Do I misunderstand or is that not the underpinning of the mass equivalence equation?
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5444562, member: 199289″]But that doesn’t mean a six year old would understand as much as you, after you have explained it to them. It actually means that you need a massive overview of any subject that you claim to be an expert in – massive enough to provide a valid data-reduced version which cannot be mis-understood.
If people “lose interest” because their Maths is inadequate then that is up to them. It doesn’t necessarily signify any great loss to them or to the World – they just need to learn acceptance of it. Academia can hardly be held responsible for when people are upset ‘cos it’s too hard. Yes, some of it is very very hard and non-experts should acknowledge that (I certainly do).[/QUOTE]
Just because maths is right, doesn’t mean our interpretations of it are, if the definitions provided don’t tally up, we get very muddled indeed
[QUOTE=”Vanadium 50, post: 5443715, member: 110252″]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]
Touché, though I would argue there may well be some asymmetry to that dialogue, rightly so, we have a tendency to judge the world by our own horizons and as such believe everyone knows more or less what we do, it is extremely frustrating spoon feeding information. Likewise those who seek knowledge will take time to renormalise and understand, mixing what they know with what they have learned, sometimes to disasterous consequences, there is a great deal of misinformation and pseudoscience to sift through so both sides must be patient and try appreciate the others stance.
[QUOTE=”Borg, post: 5444543, member: 185214″]Well, they do tend to get banned.[/QUOTE]
HAHA yes – but I meant Posts on this particular thread.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444544, member: 591032″]One my favourite quotes is that “if you cannot explain it to a 6 year old, you do not understand it yourself” I never tire of it,[/QUOTE]
But that doesn’t mean a six year old would understand as much as you, after you have explained it to them. It actually means that you need a massive overview of any subject that you claim to be an expert in – massive enough to provide a valid data-reduced version which cannot be mis-understood.
If people “lose interest” because their Maths is inadequate then that is up to them. It doesn’t necessarily signify any great loss to them or to the World – they just need to learn acceptance of it. Academia can hardly be held responsible for when people are upset ‘cos it’s too hard. Yes, some of it is very very hard and non-experts should acknowledge that (I certainly do).
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444544, member: 591032″]One my favourite quotes is that “if you cannot explain it to a 6 year old, you do not understand it yourself” I never tire of it, if it cannot be explained outside the context of itself then it is futile, Feynman had a similar stance.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/02/if-you-cant-explain-it-to-your.html[/URL]
I also find it hilarious that you accused someone else of making an “oversimplification”, when that is ALL that you’ve been doing on here.
Zz.
[QUOTE=”Vanadium 50, post: 5444529, member: 110252″]I think it’s time to refer everyone to Steve Dutch’s great essay on [URL=’https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/SelfApptdExp.htm’]Self-Appointed Experts[/URL].[/QUOTE] [USER=1]@Greg Bernhardt[/USER] really needs a “Love” button that counts as 5 Likes.
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5444484, member: 199289″]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 mY 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]
Ok, that was an over simplification, there is a spectra of traits across the board, all governed by some simple principles, clearly demonstrable by the vast array of lifestyles we see, how’re the differences compared to the similarities are negligible
[QUOTE=”Vanadium 50, post: 5444529, member: 110252″]I think it’s time to refer everyone to Steve Dutch’s great essay on [URL=’https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/SelfApptdExp.htm’]Self-Appointed Experts[/URL].[/QUOTE]
I just love that reference. It’s a Nuclear Option that should be used more often here – perhaps available as an extra button on the short cut menu – haha.
[QUOTE=”Borg, post: 5444473, member: 185214″]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]
I don’t thinks it’s that they put in the work, this stems back
[QUOTE=”Vanadium 50, post: 5444529, member: 110252″]No, he wasn’t. He had a PhD at the time of his annus mirtabilis papers, and was a professor of physics when he developed GR.
Sorry, but that’s not how the universe works. It would be nice if knowledge could be magically poured into our heads. but it takes. as you say, time and patience.
I think it’s time to refer everyone to Steve Dutch’s great essay on [URL=’https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/SelfApptdExp.htm’]Self-Appointed Experts[/URL].[/QUOTE]
People have to be willing and receptive but if what people are being told and they don’t have the mathematical understanding they are made to feel stupid and so lose interest. I. 1905 when special relativity was published he was still a parent clerk, unable to acquire a position within academia. One my favourite quotes is that “if you cannot explain it to a 6 year old, you do not understand it yourself” I never tire of it, if it cannot be explained outside the context of itself then it is futile, Feynman had a similar stance.
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5444542, member: 199289″]I don’t think there have actually been any posts from the people that the post is actually criticising.[/QUOTE]
Well, they do tend to get banned.
[QUOTE=”Borg, post: 5444473, member: 185214″]The main point in this thread is about people who think they can achieve something great without putting in the work.[/QUOTE]
This doesn’t seem to have been appreciated by several contributors. They seem to have assumed an implied criticism and several of the posts have been a bit needlessly ‘defensive’. I don’t think there have actually been any posts from the people that the post is actually criticising.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444450, member: 591032″]Einstein was a crackpot outsider [/QUOTE]
No, he wasn’t. He had a PhD at the time of his annus mirtabilis papers, and was a professor of physics when he developed GR.
[QUOTE=”Mr Matthew Briggs, post: 5444450, member: 591032″] Knowledge is for everyone, not just those who had the patience to spend 10 years educating themselves. [/QUOTE]
Sorry, but that’s not how the universe works. It would be nice if knowledge could be magically poured into our heads. but it takes, as you say, time and patience.
I think it’s time to refer everyone to Steve Dutch’s great essay on [URL=’https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/SelfApptdExp.htm’]Self-Appointed Experts[/URL].