Debunking alternative physics theories

[elcaro]

There are many alternative physics theories out there. I don't mean alternative theories which are part of mainstream science, because they can be discussed in regular forum threads, but those outside of it, mostly work of amateur physicists.

Would it be an idea to have a forum thread dedicated to debunking such theories and show why that particular theory is in error? I think it would serve educational purposes. Some of such theories are quite sophiscated, and for less educated members it might not be clear where those theories are in error.

 

[Frabjous]

It has been discussed many times. Check out
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-faq-and-howto.617567/#post-4664231

 

[elcaro]

It has been discussed many times. Check out
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-faq-and-howto.617567/#post-4664231

That post explains why alternative physics theories are not discussed on PF, only physics theories that have peer reviewed papers.
But my intention was not about discussing those theories, but showing where such theories are in error for educational purposes.
I don't think that is the same thing.

 

[Bystander]

It's called "Feeding the Trolls;" it's been tried and failed many, many, many times.

 

[elcaro]

It's called "Feeding the Trolls;" it's been tried and failed many, many, many times.

Ok.

Debunking alternative physics explenation must however be viewed as part of the regular process of scientific development. As an example, in the time before Einstein came along, there were alternative theories for the cause of gravity, like for instance Le Sage theory of gravity based on a model of "pushing gravity", which was rigorously debunked as part of the regular scientific development, so I would think it should have a place on a forum dedicated to scientific physics development. However, if such is already tried and has lead to unmaintanable/moderatable discussion threads, then this is just a pitty.

 

[phinds]

Ok.

Debunking alternative physics explenation must however be viewed as part of the regular process of scientific development.

Sure, just not here.

if such is already tried and has lead to unmaintanable/moderatable discussion threads, then this is just a pitty.

It has and it did and no, it isn't really. It's a waste of time to do it in an open forum like PF because as @Bystander said, it just ends up feeding the trolls. The discussion would go on forever and be a total waste of time.

 

[Nugatory]

Debunking alternative physics explenation must however be viewed as part of the regular process of scientific development. As an example, in the time before Einstein came along, there were alternative theories for the cause of gravity….

And after as well - for example, Google for “MOND general relativity “. Discussion of such ideas in the peer-reviewed literature is indeed part of the regular process of scientific development and an appropriate topic for this forum.

But that’s not what you were asking about when you started this thread. You were asking about the unpublished work of “amateur physicists”, and their work develops the science of physics about as much as palmistry develops the science of anatomy.

 

[anorlunda]

Suppose there are 10 theories, 1 true and 9 false. Which would be more work, explaining the truthful one, or debunking the false ones? Why is it not most educational to spend all our efforts talking about the 1 true? Why would it be more educational to divert some of the resources to debunking the 9? What you're asking for doesn't make sense.

True/False 10/1 are just metaphors I used to make a point. That's not the language real scientists use.

 

[Rive]

There are many alternative physics theories out there.

If it's a real physics theory (what means the author already did his/her homework, managed to prove it and squeeze it into scientific acceptance) then it would be OK, I guess.
But the description is more about doing that homework instead of the lazy/unwilling author. Now, that never ends well.

 

[Hornbein]

Refuting crackpottery is like trying to bail out the ocean with a thimble. There are other forums where you can try it and see for yourself what happens.

 

[elcaro]

Suppose there are 10 theories, 1 true and 9 false. Which would be more work, explaining the truthful one, or debunking the false ones? Why is it not most educational to spend all our efforts talking about the 1 true? Why would it be more educational to divert some of the resources to debunking the 9? What you're asking for doesn't make sense.

True/False 10/1 are just metaphors I used to make a point. That's not the language real scientists use.

Well, first - in order to understand the correct theory, it is also good to understand why alternative theories are not correct. To know why the correct theory is correct also includes knowing why alternative theories/explenations are incorrect.

And "true theory" is in fact not a good description of scientific theories. No scientific theory is every going to be "true', only provisionally true, as in not proven false.

 

[elcaro]

Sure, just not here.It has and it did and no, it isn't really. It's a waste of time to do it in an open forum like PF because as @Bystander said, it just ends up feeding the trolls. The discussion would go on forever and be a total waste of time.

I understand that. I am not asking anyone to waste time on anything that isn't fruitfull, but an occasional contribution of an expert author, showing why some of those alternative theories have fallacies, without opening up a discussion about it, might be usefull. The problem may be however that there are too many such alternative theories out there, there is no way you can cover all of them. As said, it has been tried, was not succesfull, then end of the discussion I think. Thanks for the replies.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, first - in order to understand the correct theory, it is also good to understand why alternative theories are not correct. To know why the correct theory is correct also includes knowing why alternative theories/explenations are incorrect.

I agree with that, but in the context of teaching, not research. It is common/useful to cite common misconceptions about physical phenomena or the theories that describe them when teaching because that addresses them head-on vs allowing them to sit in the background of someone's mind as potentially still valid. But it also means the framing of the discussion needs to be teacher-student, not researcher-researcher.

But in the context of research that is not useful. People doing research are supposed to know the full body of knowledge already, and it is a waste of other researchers' time to re-explain 100 year old misconceptions over and over and over again to people who think they are doing forward-looking research but really aren't.

This may come off as harsh, but it is just reality: the ideas of amateurs are almost never worthy of attention of professional researchers.

 

[elcaro]

I agree with that, but in the context of teaching, not research. It is common/useful to cite common misconceptions about physical phenomena or the theories that describe them when teaching because that addresses them head-on vs allowing them to sit in the background of someone's mind as potentially still valid.

But in the context of research that is not useful. People doing research are supposed to know the full body of knowledge already, and it is a waste of other researchers' time to re-explain 100 year old misconceptions over and over and over again to people who think they are doing forward-looking research but really aren't.

My primary goal was indeed the context of teaching and as part of the learning process.

 

[russ_watters]

My primary goal was indeed the context of teaching and as part of the learning process.

Well in that case we more or less agree. We have had threads in the past discussing popular misconceptions and they are often highlighted in our insights articles.

The term "alternative theories" triggers PTSD here...

 

[anorlunda]

And "true theory" is in fact not a good description of scientific theories. No scientific theory is every going to be "true', only provisionally true, as in not proven false.

If you had read the entire post, you would have seen that I said that.

 

[Evo]

We used to have a sub-forum dedicated just to unpublished theories, and one to debunk and they both turned into absolute nightmares, with one member doing an hour long rant on You Tube about how unfair we were in closing it after he had literally used the sub-forum for his own personal theory blog for months, maybe a year, it was a LONG time.

When you start posting personal theories, things that are wrong, it's like internet fly paper.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but an occasional contribution of an expert author, showing why some of those alternative theories have fallacies, without opening up a discussion about it, might be usefull.

You are very quick to be deciding how other people spend their time.

I think @Hornbein has the right idea. Feel free to do this yourself on a forum that permits this, and see how it goes. Every time it's been tried here it has done nothing but made a great big mess.

 

[phinds]

I understand that. I am not asking anyone to waste time on anything that isn't fruitfull,

Yes, you most emphatically are

 

[phinds]

Moderators, could somebody please close this thread. We've HAD this discussion before, why keep rehashing it? @Evo, @Nugatory, @russ_watters

 

[russ_watters]

Wish granted.