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
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.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/comment-page-7/#comments
Well said, Peter. But now let me ask you this: In view of your wise words, if I’ll give you now a concrete example of exactly what you said, will you let it through?
Thread closed.
There is an rady to find unmoderated philosophy forum where any igea can be gifcudfeg.
Come may find that note to their liking.
[QUOTE=”shawnr, post: 5459185, member: 542112″]so where do I go to talk about my new insight, with educated people who are interested in discerning this. its like a debate with science, I don’t understand why the subjects aren’t more interesting to talk about. its personal insight, why does this get demonized[/QUOTE]
I don’t think “demonized” is the right word. I think it’s more like “shunned” and this is because approximately 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 it turns out to be a waste of time. Not for you, perhaps, since a discussion of a “new insight” might lead you to a better understanding of science but a waste of time for the people on the other end of the discussion. That has been discovered here over and over.
[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]
so where do I go to talk about my new insight, with educated people who are interested in discerning this. its like a debate with science, I don’t understand why the subjects aren’t more interesting to talk about. its personal insight, why does this get demonized
[QUOTE=”Garlic, post: 5448551, member: 543915″]What did I do? I don’t really remember anything about this…[/QUOTE]
Don’t you remember answering a question I asked about the W[SUP]-[/SUP] boson?
hmmm…. Maybe I’ll take Danger’s advice, and post it in the “Sci-Fi and Fantasy” forum. “The OmCheeto warp engine propelled the first interstellar astronauts to Alpha Centauri…..”
ps. Mentors, are deleted posts from 2007 still visible? I got my very first infraction back then.
[quote]Dear OmCheeto,
You have received an infraction at Physics Help and Math Help – Physics Forums.
Reason: General Warning
——-
Off topic, thread hijack.[/quote]
It was [B]NOT[/B] off topic. It was a warp drive engine. It, um, was just based on bad science, and kind of fantasy engineering. But I was going to work on that. Along with maybe, learning some maths.
Not since the first few pages.
This thread getting anywhere?
[QUOTE=”Garlic, post: 5448551, member: 543915″]What did I do? I don’t really remember anything about this…[/QUOTE]
He holds a grudge for years. Like an elephant. :mad:
[QUOTE=”OmCheeto, post: 5448162, member: 103343″]ps. Thank you, [USER=405866]@mfb[/USER] & [USER=543915]@Garlic[/USER] , for finally putting to rest, my warp drive theory.[/QUOTE]
What did I do? I don’t really remember anything about this…
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5448031, member: 481549″]I’m pretty sure it would start an argument, especially over the concept of “that’s not a theory, it’s just an idea”, or whatever semantic tangle occurs when people violently disagree about something. [/quote]
That’s essentially an admission that your previous claim was false, since the acceptance of such an idea by people such as the professional scientists in this thread is what your previous claim requires to be true.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5448046, member: 481549″]That I understand, and I agree with the rather rigid enforcement of the rules. As it is stated, it’s not a forum for discussing new ideas, original research, or questioning the status quo. I’ve seen where that was tried, and it gets sort of crazy and contentious.
edit> I just came across this, thought it would fit in here.
[SIZE=6][B][URL=’https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-go-to-propose-a-new-physics-theory’]Where can I go to propose a new physics theory?[/URL][/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE]
That first answer:
[quote=”Mark Eichenlaub, PhD student in Physics”]
[SIZE=3]March 19, 2013[/SIZE]
tl;dr Turn the theory into a specific question. If you ask for feedback on a theory, physicists will interpret that as egocentric and inappropriate. You’ll just get disappointment and frustration. If you can recast yourself as a student trying to learn, you’ll get better reception and take more away from it.
…[/quote]
looks almost exactly like what members here at PF told me 8 years ago.
I joined this forum on Dec 8, 2007
I asked the question one month later.
Jan 8, 2008
[INDENT]Question:
[INDENT]OmCheeto; “[I]What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?
So far, I’ve found one thread that has debunked one of my kook theories.
I really appreciate the fact that I no longer have to research something which I thought was a new idea but has actually been around for 80 years or so and was disproven about 40 years ago.
It’s such a waste of time having an overactive imagination”.[/I][/INDENT]
Answers:
[INDENT]Ivan Seeking, et al; “[I]The key is to ask the relevant questions without promoting a theory”.[/I]
Danger commented on my last statement; “[I]Wrong! Overactive imaginations have led to most of the world’s greatest discoveries (next to plain dumb luck). The trick is to temper your imagination with reality. Certainly look at a goal and think outside of the box if necessary to achieve it, but when your ideas conflict with established fact, back up a couple of steps and approach from a different angle”.[/I][/INDENT][/INDENT]
Worked for me.
I still have whackadoodle ideas, but until I put in the time to understand why they’re whackadoodle, I’ll waste no one else’s time.
Once, I even built a [URL=’https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/perpetual-motion-disease.589892/#post-3832040′][B][U]perpetual motion machine[/U][/B][/URL], and posted my results here at the forum.
To my knowledge, I’m the only member who has ever gotten away with such a stunt.
ps. Thank you, [USER=405866]@mfb[/USER] & [USER=543915]@Garlic[/USER] , for finally putting to rest, my warp drive theory. :bow:
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5448046, member: 481549″]Where can I go to propose a new physics theory?[/QUOTE]
You don’t “propose a new `Physics theory”. No one does, out of the blue. That sort of thing only happened centuries ago. Your ‘conjecture’ would have to be based on a significant amount of well founded evidence and be absolutely bomb proof by your own estimation. No amount of optimism or ignorance is acceptable.
Your idea (possibly a conjecture, unlikely a hypothesis, almost totally impossibly a theory) will be well enough structured and supported for you to be able to present its various facets / steps independently (not with a fanfare of trumpets about a “New theory”) on a carefully planned series of posts on PF or equivalent. If all those posts get through and are accepted then ask your question again, but this time you will have a track record on PF, at least.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5448042, member: 197831″]Meta-discussions like this one are about the rules that forums like PF adopt, and their rationale.[/QUOTE] That I understand, and I agree with the rather rigid enforcement of the rules. As it is stated, it’s not a forum for discussing new ideas, original research, or questioning the status quo. I’ve seen where that was tried, and it gets sort of crazy and contentious.
edit> I just came across this, thought it would fit in here.
[SIZE=6][B][URL=’https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-go-to-propose-a-new-physics-theory’]Where can I go to propose a new physics theory?[/URL][/B][/SIZE]
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5448020, member: 481549″]You describe your own personal ideas here as “the hypothesis”, and a discussion about it is taking place here. If you described as “my theory” then it would be a violation of the rules here.[/QUOTE]
I’m not putting forward this hypothesis as a scientific theory. I’m putting it forward as a hypothesis about why meta-discussions [I]about[/I] scientific theories show a particular pattern. If you are commenting that the rules about meta-discussions are somewhat different from the rules about object-level discussions of theories themselves, then yes, you are right; the rules have to be interpreted somewhat differently for meta-discussions, because if we interpret them strictly, meta-discussions would be impossible.
You appear to recognize the difference, since later on, you say:
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5448020, member: 481549″]if that is the case, it’s a different discussion.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. It’s a meta-discussion, in the terms I used above, rather than an object-level discussion.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5448020, member: 481549″]One could also argue that trying to understand the psychology of “why people believe as they do” is also science.[/QUOTE]
Yes, one could. If we took that viewpoint, then discussions like this one would belong in a “psychology” forum or something similar.
However, there is an alternate viewpoint that one could take: meta-discussions like this one aren’t about scientifically studying why people believe what they do, or behave the way they do in internet forum discussions. Meta-discussions like this one are about the rules that forums like PF adopt, and their rationale. If we had to wait for a thorough scientific study of people’s beliefs and behaviors before we could set up rules for forums like PF, we wouldn’t have any such forums. That’s not feasible. We have to get on with the business of running PF as best we can, whether there is any valid science bearing on the subject or not. So we have to pick some rules, and use whatever intellectual tools we have available to try to explain why we picked the rules we picked. That’s the way I would approach this discussion, and the article it is based on.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5448020, member: 481549″]From my experience, there is a great deal of interest[/QUOTE]
People who have personal theories have a great deal of interest in posting them, yes. But, at least in the PF threads I’ve seen, basically nobody else cares; the only people posting in such threads are the OP, the one with the personal theory, and moderators who are trying to enforce the forum rules.
There is a related type of thread which does tend to attract more interest: a thread in which someone has an elementary misunderstanding of some aspect of a current theory, and refuses to abandon it. I didn’t have this kind of thread in mind when I wrote the article, but I agree it can look somewhat similar, as far as the topic goes. It is true that “misunderstanding” threads like this can attract lots of posters and go on for a long time; my general observation is that many different people will try many different ways of getting the OP to recognize his misunderstanding, and none of them will work, and eventually a moderator has to shut the thread down because it’s going nowhere.
The difference, IMO, is that in this type of thread, the OP does not have an alternate theory; they just don’t believe the current theory. If you ask them, “Well, how do [I]you[/I] explain the facts?”, they draw a blank; or, in some cases, they deny the facts. But they don’t say things like “I can explain all of the same observations as GR using a Newtonian gravity model”, which would be a personal theory. They don’t construct their own explanations at all; they just refuse to believe the explanations given by the current theory.
[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] Let’s apply that thinking to the topic. It starts off with what is self described as “a hypothesis” about human behavior. That’s psychology. Should the author be dismissed and his commentary deleted because he hasn’t studied the field? He has no degree in the field, he hasn’t published, he doesn’t even understand all the work done on this already, so isn’t it just some idea with no published science behind it?
It’s an engineer trying to put forth a personal hypothesis about behavior, motivations and “why people believe” a certain way. Isn’t that, to put it in the worst light, what crackpots do with physics? Isn’t it, in fact, the very premise that is being discussed? The sort of thing nobody cares about? Yet, even knowing full well the author is no published expert in any field that applies to this sort of hypothesis, and provided no sources, I still find it interesting.
Obviously.
[QUOTE=”russ_watters, post: 5446743, member: 142″]What theory is that? If true, that would probably be the first time that’s ever happened.[/QUOTE]
I’m pretty sure it would start an argument, especially over the concept of “that’s not a theory, it’s just an idea”, or whatever semantic tangle occurs when people violently disagree about something.
[QUOTE=”russ_watters, post: 5447968, member: 142″]And the regular members haven’t even gotten to see all that this thread has attracted…[/QUOTE] Are you saying invisible censorship is happening?
Just kidding. I already know that is what you mean.
(edit) For some reason the multiquote isn’t working right for me, so posts I wanted to respond to vanished when I tried to quote them. I’m not avoiding answering.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5447659, member: 197831″]I like to consider it as at least some confirmation of the hypothesis I gave in the article :wink:, namely that people like to believe that anyone, even if they don’t understand what’s currently known, can overthrow an accepted theory–or at least come up with an idea that is worth considering, that leads to the overthrow or at least modification of an accepted theory, even if they don’t do all the work of developing the idea themselves. So when we tell them that’s way too unlikely to matter, they don’t take it well.[/QUOTE] I think language, and especially the way language can be used in different ways, is an issue, regarding the Meta discussion you have created. You describe your own personal ideas here as “the hypothesis”, and a discussion about it is taking place here. If you described as “my theory” then it would be a violation of the rules here.
[QUOTE=”jbriggs444, post: 5446593, member: 422467″]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]Philosophical discussions are permitted only at the discretion of the mentors and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal[/I]
[/LIST]
[/QUOTE] In any case, you came up with original material, and it is being discussed, here on the forum.
[quote]I don’t know exactly why so many nonscientists seem to believe that type (B) situations are vastly more common than they actually are, but I can think of several possible reasons:[/quote]
Reference [URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/[/URL]
Some would say you are putting forth your own theory about “why so many nonscientists seem to believe”, which is the reason I started off with my observation that is not a physics discussion, but psychology, philosophy or about the forum rules. It also appears to be your theory to explain “why” something happens, why “some people believe” , even if you describe it as a hypothesis. But is it actually a scientific hypothesis?
Let’s say it is only a hypothesis. Then obviously some people can discuss their own personal hypothesis about human behavior, in regards to the physics forum, or forums in general. Is that the case? Does that mean a personal hypothesis about physics would be allowed as well? This is why I brought up language as an issue. In any case, it seems this is far too meta to continue. What something actually “is” certainly depends on both language as well as who is judging what something actually is.
[QUOTE=”anorlunda, post: 5437902, member: 455902″]If I substitute the word “idea” for “theory”, it is plain that Peter’s points apply to almost all human relations, not just science. [/QUOTE] That may be true, but it’s not using the scientific method to be able to show it to be true.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5437254, member: 197831″]Because the subject is how the predictions made by scientific theories get compared with experiment. That is well within the domain of science.[/QUOTE] Now if that is the case, it’s a different discussion.
One could also argue that trying to understand the psychology of “why people believe as they do” is also science. It’s just not considered physics.
How does this all relate to the question that started it all off?
[quote]In any forum where science is discussed, there will always be people who have a great new personal theory and can’t understand why no one else is interested in it. Here at PF we have rules about this, but I want to look at the more general question of why there is apparently so little interest in such personal theories,[/quote]
Reference [URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/[/URL]
From my experience, there is a great deal of interest, in fact. so much and so often that you have to actually deny such discussions, as they quickly propagate, and turn nasty, so much that no Mod or Admin could possibly ride herd on the vast numbers or discussions and arguments that quickly develop. It doesn’t even matter what the field is, it’s not that there is no interest, it’s that there is far too much interest. Mostly debunking or trying to explain why your new idea is wrong, and much explaining of why it’s wrong to even post such ideas.
But rarely have I observed just an indifference or ignoring of crackpot ideas and novel theories.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5447659, member: 197831″]I like to consider it as at least some confirmation of the hypothesis I gave in the article :wink:, namely that people like to believe that anyone, even if they don’t understand what’s currently known, can overthrow an accepted theory–or at least come up with an idea that is worth considering, that leads to the overthrow or at least modification of an accepted theory, even if they don’t do all the work of developing the idea themselves. So when we tell them that’s way too unlikely to matter, they don’t take it well.[/QUOTE]
And the regular members haven’t even gotten to see all that this thread has attracted…
[QUOTE=”mfb, post: 5447608, member: 405866″]Often those definitions are even circular.[/QUOTE]
Well…
[CENTER][ATTACH=full]99363[/ATTACH][/CENTER]
[center]:oldlaugh:[/center]
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5447659, member: 197831″]I like to consider it as at least some confirmation of the hypothesis I gave in the article :wink:, namely that people like to believe that anyone, even if they don’t understand what’s currently known, can overthrow an accepted theory–or at least come up with an idea that is worth considering, that leads to the overthrow or at least modification of an accepted theory, even if they don’t do all the work of developing the idea themselves. So when we tell them that’s way too unlikely to matter, they don’t take it well.[/QUOTE]
It shows a deep disrespect for the subject
Joke:
“Can you play the piano?”
“Don’t know, I’ve never tried.”
[QUOTE=”sophiecentaur, post: 5447624, member: 199289″]I don’t know what the problem is.[/QUOTE]
I like to consider it as at least some confirmation of the hypothesis I gave in the article :wink:, namely that people like to believe that anyone, even if they don’t understand what’s currently known, can overthrow an accepted theory–or at least come up with an idea that is worth considering, that leads to the overthrow or at least modification of an accepted theory, even if they don’t do all the work of developing the idea themselves. So when we tell them that’s way too unlikely to matter, they don’t take it well.
208 posts!!!!
So many of them contain some very deep resentment by people who feel that they’ve not been accepted into ‘the club’. Most stories are in the third person (“the ideas of X were never accepted . . . . ” ) but they seem so personal. Many appear not to know what ‘the club’ is about, even. Science is not Magic and it’s not fantasy. PF, in particular is mostly about established stuff and it helps people to get to grips with it. (See the mission statement in ‘terms and Rules).
I don’t know what the problem is. Attendance is not compulsory and their is an almost infinite choice of forum styles out there.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447220, member: 590705″]Incorrect/unlikely theories that people come-up with and post in a place like this forum, regardless of how many flaws they might be seemingly obviously be riddled-with, inspire the wise scientist to find a whole host of previously never-considered perspectives that may point them in a wonderful new direction![/QUOTE]I have never seen anything like this, and apparently no one else here did.
Crackpot “theories” usually fall in one of those groups:
[list][*] Things scientists discussed in the past and discarded because they didn’t fit to observations.
[*] Incoherent ramblings without any structure (google “Timecube” if you need an example)
[*] Renaming things without a theory: “What if gravity is actually [random word]?” – without a definition of [random word], this is pointless, and defining it with more undefined words does not help either. Often those definitions are even circular.[/list]
None of those could give any inspiration to scientists.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5447357, member: 197831″]It is no such thing. You made a claim that something could happen. I asked you for examples of it happening. If you can’t give any such examples, on what do you base your claim? [/QUOTE]
Wishful thinking based speculation.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447320, member: 590705″]No, I cannot (present party excluded.)[/QUOTE]
Why do you exclude “present party”? Either you can give an example or you can’t. Which?
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447320, member: 590705″]that boarders on a trick-question[/QUOTE]
It is no such thing. You made a claim that something could happen. I asked you for examples of it happening. If you can’t give any such examples, on what do you base your claim? If your excuse is that you can’t read other people’s minds, or that scientists don’t talk about their sources of inspiration, then why do you make a claim that you yourself admit you can’t support with evidence?
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447320, member: 590705″]I agree that someone that sees no value in something [debunking][/QUOTE]
I didn’t say there was no value in debunking period. Often it has great value. But not in the particular cases under discussion. A theory that is “not even wrong” is not going to be worth debunking. A theory that is wrong might be. But you can’t come up with even a wrong theory (let alone a right one) without understanding the field the theory applies to.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447320, member: 590705″]Learning/reinforcing concepts of known physics is clearly not as important for you as someone like me.[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say pedagogy in general has no value. I said pedagogy for people who have posted their personal theories has no value–because people who do that are not receptive to pedagogy. We have had [I]lots[/I] of experience with this on PF; that’s why we have the rules we have now. Pedagogy for people who understand that they need to first learn what is already known, before trying to come up with new ideas, can be very valuable, and that is one of the key things PF is here for.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447320, member: 590705″]The “no benefit” portion of your reply is you opinion.[/QUOTE]
It is also, as I said above, the conclusion from a lot of past experience here on PF. We didn’t come up with these rules in a vacuum. PF used to have a more liberal policy on things like personal theories. The result was a lot more noise, without once having anything useful come out of such threads.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447320, member: 590705″]I certainly do not want a bunch of bogus, crackpot theories floating around in the “common subjects areas”, but I do want to read them[/QUOTE]
Then you will have to read them somewhere besides PF. Sorry.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447320, member: 590705″]I simply think that they do have some key value that you may not appreciate or simply disagree with me over.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we disagree on this. Which is fine, as long as you understand that PF’s rules are what they are for reasons that we consider valid.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]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. [/quote]
As far as I can tell, most theories undergo some amount of discussion when first proposed, but scientists outright dismissing, attacking, mocking, or ignoring a theory is a rare thing and usually reserved for theories that tend to upset major worldviews of the time (biological evolution, certain cosmological theories, etc). And even then those theories are usually ridiculed more by non-scientists than scientists.
[quote]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.[/QUOTE]
So you state that “almost every new idea” is ridiculed, but then state that its actually only the paradigm changing ones (of which only a few exist). You’ve refuted your own argument here.
OK, then Consider my previous post(s) an artifact of a rambling lunatic. I apologize for wasting your esteemed members’ time. Twas a great first day! I do appreciate the warm welcome from everyone. But I won’t waste anymore space arguing. Fair enough! :smile: G’night!
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447320, member: 590705″]how often does some random scientist publish and then somehow make it know that (s)he was inspired by some particular source?[/QUOTE]All the time. That is one of the purposes of the references section of any scientific paper.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5447294, member: 197831″]Can you give any actual examples of this happening?[/QUOTE]
No, I cannot (present party excluded.) But that boarders on a trick-question, as I cannot read the conscious minds of other people. And how often does some random scientist publish and then somehow make it know that (s)he was inspired by some particular source?
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5447294, member: 197831″]I strongly suspect that you can’t; and that would underscore a key reason for PF’s policy of not allowing discussion of personal theories–there’s no value even in debunking them.[/QUOTE]
I agree that someone that sees no value in something [debunking] will probably not find anything valuable. That is common-sense.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5447294, member: 197831″]Exactly; which means that this kind of investment in pedagogy is highly unlikely to lead to anything of value.[/QUOTE]
I’m clearly not as intelligent as you (serious) regarding my relatively new interest in physics. So you probably have everything figured out. Learning/reinforcing concepts of known physics is clearly not as important for you as someone like me. Yes the investment is academic in nature, I presumed that was the nature of the physics forms. If not, I apologize.
[QUOTE=”PeterDonis, post: 5447294, member: 197831″]All past experience here on PF indicates that it is emphatically [I]not[/I] a small price to pay–all the more so as it produces no real benefit anyway.[/QUOTE]
The “no benefit” portion of your reply is you opinion. I certainly do not want a bunch of bogus, crackpot theories floating around in the “common subjects areas”, but I do want to read them, in some “trash-bin” type of category, shoud they truly cross the line! I’ve moderated on a physics forum before, and I feel the high level of annoyance these post (oh-so kindly) provided! I simply think that they do have some key value that you may not appreciate or simply disagree with me over. I can accept disagreement, respectfully. I hope that you can as well.
Thanks for the reply.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]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.[/QUOTE]I call “BS” on this. Please provide peer reviewed references where the experiments and evidence supporting this online-forum-developed theory.
If the experimental evidence was only published on the same forum where it was developed then it is not credible. This is one reason why science is published in peer reviewed journals and not just in department newsletters.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447300, member: 590705″]”scientific advancement” of known concepts, which you also said that these forums are for pursuing, is not advancement at all if you don’t use known and widely-accepted theoretical frameworks to work out solutions to unknown questions.[/QUOTE]
This is not what you were describing before. Before, you were describing this scenario: someone posts a personal theory here on PF; even though their post shows a clear lack of understanding of current theories, it somehow inspires a “wise scientist” to come up with a new idea that actually works. That is way too unlikely to bother considering; but it’s also different from what you’re talking about in the quote just above.
In that quote, you’re talking about this scenario: someone posts a question here on PF–not a personal theory but just a question about something they don’t understand or can’t work out the math for–which leads to a discussion in which a currently known theory is used to derive a new result–or at least one that is new to the participants. That does happen, and has happened here on PF. But it doesn’t happen as a result of someone posting a personal theory.
[QUOTE=”phinds, post: 5447292, member: 310841″]And, as I pointed out to you in another thread, that is not the purpose of this forum.[/QUOTE]
But then “scientific advancement” of known concepts, which you also said that these forums are for pursuing, is not advancement at all if you don’t use known and widely-accepted theoretical frameworks to work out solutions to unknown questions. It’s merely stagnant talk about known laws of physics as they stand (and homework assistance.)
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447220, member: 590705″]Incorrect/unlikely theories that people come-up with and post in a place like this forum, regardless of how many flaws they might be seemingly obviously be riddled-with, inspire the wise scientist to find a whole host of previously never-considered perspectives that may point them in a wonderful new direction![/QUOTE]
Can you give any actual examples of this happening? I strongly suspect that you can’t; and that would underscore a key reason for PF’s policy of not allowing discussion of personal theories–there’s no value even in debunking them.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447220, member: 590705″]Hopefully some people can accept what the problems are once they see them and/or understand them – although I realize very few truly do so![/QUOTE]
Exactly; which means that this kind of investment in pedagogy is highly unlikely to lead to anything of value.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447220, member: 590705″]it’s a small price to pay[/QUOTE]
All past experience here on PF indicates that it is emphatically [I]not[/I] a small price to pay–all the more so as it produces no real benefit anyway.
[QUOTE=”indimingo, post: 5447220, member: 590705″]One thing that you’ve not incorporated into your insight is this, quite important and very valid point. Incorrect/unlikely theories that people come-up with and post in a place like this forum, regardless of how many flaws they might be seemingly obviously be riddled-with, inspire the wise scientist to find a whole host of previously never-considered perspectives that may point them in a wonderful new direction! [/QUOTE]And, as I pointed out to you in another thread, that is not the purpose of this forum.
One thing that you’ve not incorporated into your insight is this, quite important and very valid point. Incorrect/unlikely theories that people come-up with and post in a place like this forum, regardless of how many flaws they might be seemingly obviously be riddled-with, inspire the wise scientist to find a whole host of previously never-considered perspectives that may point them in a wonderful new direction! Sometime, the wilder the concocted theory (actually ‘hypothesis’ would be more appropriate) is, the more the ‘imaginative-juices’ start to flow! For this reason alone, I can very much appreciate some of the weird things people come up with, relative to mainstream science, or even SOMETHING that reasonably approaches it!.
Another way that it can be “productive”, is when people look past the pseudoscientific ideas as something worth just their face-value, and take the time to explain/teach the person the ‘whys’ and ‘whats’ of their flaw(s). Hopefully some people can accept what the problems are once they see them and/or understand them – although I realize very few truly do so! That’s just a bonus, but, the truly productive energy is gained by the one who tries to present sound/valid arguments to explain the errors in such a way that they, theoretically, could understand it! To go over it several times and from several different approaches, while remaining cool and not getting frustrated and just throwing their hands up in the air and walking away! That improves one’s teaching skills, true, but even most critically important, it reinforces the scientific concepts they use to ‘teach’ someone far more deeply into the wiring of their brain! Using everything you can to try to talk someone out of their idea is a profoundly difficult challenge to accept – but the end-result is marginally as important than realizing that it’s through teaching that we learn the most. So I say they are simply free lunch for the mind!
The downside is obviously ‘clutter’ and a need for extensive moderation to quickly separate them if/when possible…But it’s a small price to pay if you take what I’ve said at all seriously.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]…
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.
…[/QUOTE]
Ah! Hahahaha!
Yes. Along with YouTube, there is Google, Facebook, and Physics Forums.
I wouldn’t call the creation of these entities “groundbreaking” technologies.
YouTube is just a place to put videos. I had a web page 20 years ago, and people could have put videos there.
Google was preceded by a myriad of “search engine” sites.
I still don’t know why Facebook displaced MySpace.
And of course, Physics Forums was merely another forum.
So why did these ideas become so successful?
Two words; “Business Model”.
The two previous sciencey forums I belonged to, no longer exist.
Why? Bad business models, IMHO.
So why is Physics Forums still around after umteen years?
IMHO, it’s because of the basic forum rules, which do not allow people to waste my time, nor anyone else’s, with nonsense, which even they don’t understand.
ps. I came up with a TRILLION dollar idea about 5 years ago, but have never once discussed it here. I’m simply going to patent it. So yes, I, and a select few here at the forum, will be laughing all the way to the bank.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]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)[/QUOTE]
We don’t maintain a separate subsection for discussions of how the scientific process operates, so discussions on that topic are often are placed in “General Physics” (unless they are about a poster’s specific situation, in which case Academic Guidance or Career Guidance may be more appropriate). That is the case with this Insights article.
Of course no topic exists in a vacuum, so the insights article provokes discussion over more ground than the article itself covers. Science has institutional defences against crackpots making uninformed claims of having discovered revolutionary new ground-breaking ideas – but then we ask why there are so many of these that the defences are needed, and there’s an element of psychology in that question. The forum rules, including the prohibition on personal theories and the requirement for published support, leverage these defences – but then anyone who is unhappy with the way the defences operate is also going to be unhappy with the forum rules so they get pulled into the discussion.
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]
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.[/QUOTE]
What theory is that? If true, that would probably be the first time that’s ever happened.
My curiosity aside, we’re ok with that, for the same reason I don’t regularly play the lottery. Our time and effort are better spent elsewhere and the guarantee of doing some good every single day is more appealing to us than the extraordinarily tiny possibility of doing something amazing once, ever (while wasting much of the rest of our time here).
[QUOTE=”F X, post: 5446589, member: 481549″]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.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that a valid new scientific theory was discovered purely by forum posts? Please give specifics.