Why Won't You Look at My New Theory? - Comments

[PeterDonis]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I would add to this: Our current fundamental theories--GR and QM--make extraordinary claims. We believe those claims because we have extraordinary evidence for them. So when someone asks what extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims would look like, we can just point them at those theories and the evidence we have for them. That's the very high bar you have to clear to get a theory accepted the way those theories are accepted.

 

[mfb]

Most of the people making up useless "theories" are not aware of all the evidence for existing theories - and all the precise predictions every new theory has to make.

 

[anorlunda]

Great Insight Peter. I have no doubts that your insights about scientist/non-scientist ways of viewing are correct. Ditto for the B bias of the public. Ditto for theories that attempt to "short cut" actual learning as a prerequisite to expressing ideas on a subject.

But I do believe that scientists have B bias also. Nobody gets a Nobel prize, for reducing the discrepancy in The Moon's orbit by 1%. It is also easier to earn tenure, or get published in Nature, or to get funding from NSF, with hopes of B advances than A tedium. Imagine a team of scientists spending a lifetime improving the conventional calculations of the Lunar orbit. How much respect do they get from fellow scientists compared to someone who claims a cancer cure?

I often think of the great service to science that is given when scientists repeat other's reported experiments to validate or refute the claims. That's great stuff, but how much fame and respect can you earn if you spend your whole life doing that?

I think also of theoretical physicists such as Hawking and Susskind. As Peter says, the chances of a B breakthrough are very slim, so by definition, only a tiny fraction of theoretical physicists will ever achieve one. But we don't treat them as fools. We (scientist we and public we) accord them great respect and honor for their efforts. I think we all have the B bias.

If I substitute the word "idea" for "theory", it is plain that Peter's points apply to almost all human relations, not just science. While it is true that human civilization is built upon ideas, it is also true that almost all ideas are bad ideas. In everyday life, just as on PF, it is considered boorish to impose your raw ideas on others. Think of the time-honored saying, "Ideas are a dime a dozen." In today's world with more than 7 billion people, I also believe that it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to have an idea that is truly original. It is a sign of ignorance and hubris to jump to the conclusion that your own fresh idea is original. A person needs to put more effort into an idea to validate and develop it before presenting it to others in search of "clever boy" praise.

It is also true in ordinary life that people often think their own ideas are good, only because they are ignorant of why things are the way they are, and ignorance about what ideas others have considered and rejected. We are all guilty of that. I confess to more than once scrambling for a piece of paper to write a patent disclosure document in the emotional rush after conceiving an idea that IMO was especially clever.

So scientists get annoyed by naive scientific theories. Everyone get annoyed by non-scientific naive ideas.

On the other hand, we must guard against elitism. More so in the USA than Europe, trying to silence others based on one's authority and superiority is
considered boorish. Just yesterday I heard an advertising spot on NPR that said, "I speak with the authority of someone who actually has a uterus." In the USA, such a comment is highly offensive. Whether it is true or justified makes no difference; it is still offensive.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

I don't have to worry about this happening. I ain't smart enough to theorize.

 

[Charles Link]

One additional comment I have on this, (I previously added a comment in post #28), is that there are, even in this day and age, at least a couple of topics that are very much standard textbook material that are not covered as thoroughly as they could be in the textbooks. I think it could be good for Physics Forums to recognize when such is the case, and not immediately put it in the category of "personal theory". There is, of course, a trade-off between easing restrictions and being flooded with all kinds of "personal theories".

 

[sophiecentaur]

But I do believe that scientists have B bias also.

You are right BUT a good Scientist will check things out before inflicting the B idea on the world. 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, as they say.

 

[sophiecentaur]

at least a couple of topics that are very much standard textbook material that are not covered as thoroughly as they could be in the textbooks.

That's a consequence of the fact that Physics has been growing for many decades. My A level Physics in the 1960s was full of topics that they just don[t have time for now. Perhaps we should accept that Physics needs to be divided up earlier than at University.

 

[Charles Link]

That's a consequence of the fact that Physics has been growing for many decades. My A level Physics in the 1960s was full of topics that they just don[t have time for now. Perhaps we should accept that Physics needs to be divided up earlier than at University.

These days there are so many specialized areas that the physics student can easily get overwhelmed with a lot of details in trying to learn the specialized topics. It is my advice to undergraduate physics students to especially concentrate on the fundamentals including mechanics, E&M along with diffraction and interference theory, and linear response theory along with Fourier transforms (basically emphasizing the 3 R's.) The specialized topics might be where the research money is at, but if they miss the fundamentals, they are likely to struggle needlessly with the more specialized topics. All too often, it seems the fundamentals are getting deemphasized in the curriculum and replaced by more specialized topics.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

There is a strong economic motive for professors to discount work from outside academia. Their time is valuable, and much of its value comes from the respect for current science.

So checking some crackpot's idea is a two fold hit to their income.

First, it's time that could be more profitably spent on learning more science, grading papers, doing their own research, watching a movie, bowling, etc.

Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.) he undermines the value of the professor's work. (Ex. "War of the currents.")

One of the big reasons for universities to be open and publicly supported is to limit this economic disincentive to explore new ideas. Most professors I've known love finding smart students and hunt them out. I don't think it's a coincidence the War of the Currents was promoted by the first commercial research lab, and not by a public university.

Business and science don't always play well together.

 

[Isaac0427]

Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don't do it anymore.

Speaking of that, I've got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?

 

[Drakkith]

Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.) he undermines the value of the professor's work. (Ex. "War of the currents.")

Tesla wasn't a crackpot (well, not a common-type crackpot at least). He was well trained in science and engineering and made many, many real-life contributions before the War of the Currents ever started.

I don't think it's a coincidence the War of the Currents was promoted by the first commercial research lab, and not by a public university.

Indeed. That "war" was purely a commercial affair. It had little to nothing to do with the scientific community as far as I know. It would be like a cable company and a DSL company competing over internet customers.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don't do it anymore.

Speaking of that, I've got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?

I still do this all the time. I just try to avoid doing it here. (I have lots of crazy, crackpottery that no one wants to hear.)

Intelligence, training, and even being right occasionally are no protection against crackpot ideas. Schitzotypal disorder demands crackpottery.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Second, if the crackpot turns out to be right, (Rare, but it happens. Ex. Tesla.)

OMG, you had to go a long way back for your example, didn't you?
Nicola was surely more of an inventor than a Scientist, I think, having read some of the wording he used in the stuff of his that I have read (no refs I'm afraid). His championing of AC was no fundamental Science. It was a very good practical choice.

 

[sophiecentaur]

These days there are so many specialized areas that the physics student can easily get overwhelmed with a lot of details in trying to learn the specialized topics. It is my advice to undergraduate physics students to especially concentrate on the fundamentals including mechanics, E&M along with diffraction and interference theory, and linear response theory along with Fourier transforms (basically emphasizing the 3 R's.) The specialized topics might be where the research money is at, but if they miss the fundamentals, they are likely to struggle needlessly with the more specialized topics. All too often, it seems the fundamentals are getting deemphasized in the curriculum and replaced by more specialized topics.

I agree with you but the Colleges want bums on seats and they couldn't sell courses on the promise that graduates wold be leaving with the ability to start doing any of the sexy Science that might appeal to them. Very young students want to get on with the clever stuff and not the basics. (Evidence of this is in many of the posts we get on PF) and that's what the courses all offer.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

OMG, you had to go a long way back for your example, didn't you?
Nicola was surely more of an inventor than a Scientist, I think, having read some of the wording he used in the stuff of his that I have read (no refs I'm afraid). His championing of AC was no fundamental Science. It was a very good practical choice.

His view of the universe was fundamentally different than most people's. He was a loon. He used to polish his silver spoons, then use each one for one bite. He was a crackpot, and a genius. Some of his ideas about how electricity works are still taught. Most of it is rubbish though. (Not wrong, just not worth teaching.) Still, if you think Electrical Engineering shouldn't have a Forum here, lobby the powers that be.

Crackpots overthrowing science are rare. Still there are a few in every field. (Einstein wasn't the most stable individual, BTW.) A lot seem to end up as inventors. Savage (radial tire), Tesla, Hughes, Christie (auto suspension), Madelbrot (Chaos theory, but few liked him, even those who thought him brilliant.), Perelman (Solved Poincaré conjecture, turned down $1 million to live in mother's basement). Still there are few compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientists with more normal lives.

For current science, some guy (Sheldrake, PhD from Cambridge) got banned from TED Talks for his crackpottery and claims about how bad science is. (I don't think his theories lead any revolutions, but there's plenty of crackpottery there.)

 

[russ_watters]

His view of the universe was fundamentally different than most people's. He was a loon. He used to polish his silver spoons, then use each one for one bite. He was a crackpot, and a genius.

Being crazy is nowhere close to the same thing as being a crackpot. The scary thing is that many crackpots seem otherwise to be perfectly normal!

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Being crazy is nowhere close to the same thing as being a crackpot. The scary thing is that many crackpots seem otherwise to be perfectly normal!

If you define crackpottery as being wrong, then of course no crackpots ever overthrew science. They were wrong after all.

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

Even a broken watch is right twice a day. People who see the world differently (I hold myself in this group, BTW) are usually wrong. But only usually. The ones who are right often change the world.

 

[houlahound]

Context based teaching is a fad with no evidence it works.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

So what is the correct nomenclature?

We are discussing those on the fringes of standard science. What is a good word to group them (us?, I'm not always the sharpest tool... ).

I certainly don't want to demean anyone. The people I listed are people I deeply admire. They achieved greatness often despite long suffering. There are thousands more who suffer and burn out without accomplishment so a few can change the world for the better.

This site is dedicated to teaching and promoting standard science, and that's a good thing. For how can anyone make advances without knowing what went before. Incremental knowledge is critically important. But change comes from those who dare to be different.

 

[russ_watters]

If you define crackpottery as being wrong, then of course no crackpots ever overthrew science. They were wrong after all.

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

I would define it the same way you do (though more strongly than that) -- which has nothing to do with being "crazy". So that was a strange that you equated crazy with crackpottery and in any case, it means your example of Tesla isn't correct.

 

[Drakkith]

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

Wikipedia's article on crank (crackpot is a common synonym): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term, however, does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.

Note that the basic idea here is that a person holds an unshakable belief in something and there is essentially nothing can convince them otherwise. Having a non-standard idea does not necessarily make your a crackpot, even if you have no evidence for your idea. The key is that you ignore or dismiss evidence against your idea and you cannot have a rational discussion about it. You can read the article for more details. Just see the "common characteristics of cranks" section.

 

[Isaac0427]

I still do this all the time. I just try to avoid doing it here. (I have lots of crazy, crackpottery that no one wants to hear.)

Oh, I do too.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Still, if you think Electrical Engineering shouldn't have a Forum here,

I don't like spending too much time on Classification because it is often wasted effort and many things just don't fit. But Tesla's usefulness was not in his loopy theories; it was from essentially practical things like AC Power transmission. The way he described how his things 'worked' was so outside our mainstream appreciation that it often reads like BS. I'd say he was a successful EE but, as a Scientist, he was just not reliable.

The Scientific Community can be very hard on people, though. Laithwaite was a successful Engineer and Professor and a legend for his development of the Linear Motor. He then started looking into gyroscopes and thought he'd found reactionless drive. He (genuinely, I think) asked for help with the Maths of the subject but it was so type B that everyone took a step backwards and left him outside in the cold. They just didn't want to be associated with 'that sort of thing' when there were many who could have painlessly put the subject to bed by doing the right Maths. A sad case.

 

[mfb]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Now add a GPS function and weather forecast, and see how often it will be right. Still more often than crackpots with no education.

 

[Dale]

Personally, I have nothing against Tesla. Unfortunately mental illness affects individuals in all walks of life and communities, including the scientific community.

However, when a person today references Tesla as a source, it is almost always a bad sign.

 

[Charles Link]

As I mentioned previously, (post #40), there are still a few topics where the standard textbook material is not completely thorough in the presentation of some of the subjects. If an improved explanation is given in one of these areas, hopefully it doesn't immediately get pushed into the category of "personal theory". Part of the adventure of physics is figuring things out, and on occasion, coming up with improved explanations. Sometimes the textbooks and even a "google" does not have all the answers to even some of the standard textbook material.

 

[OmCheeto]

Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don't do it anymore.

Speaking of that, I've got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?

I'd be very interested.
If you PM me your idea, I will send you blueprints of my warp drive engine.
There's no math, so it's really easy to understand.

 

[PeterDonis]

As I mentioned previously, (post #40), there are still a few topics where the standard textbook material is not completely thorough in the presentation of some of the subjects. If an improved explanation is given in one of these areas, hopefully it doesn't immediately get pushed into the category of "personal theory".

Even if a standard textbook doesn't treat a particular subject, there should be some acceptable source that does--a monograph, or a peer-reviewed paper, or something like that. If there is, you can just refer to it, and give your own summary of what it says. If there isn't, then how do you know your own personal version is an "improved explanation"?

It would help, btw, if you could give a specific example rather than speaking in generalities.

 

[sophiecentaur]

This thread seems to have lost it's way in an attempt to be fair to the very rare example of an untutored genius who has something of great importance to Science but can't get it published. The probability of this is, I think, less than the probability of an accepted genius in an established institution who gets knocked down by a bus on the way to the office when he / she was planning to pen an Earth shattering paper which everyone would accept with no problems. Either way, we missed out - a bit - but next year / decade / century, someone else will produce the same thing. Mostly, it will be within a very few years at worst.

 

[mfb]

This thread seems to have lost it's way in an attempt to be fair to the very rare example of an untutored genius who has something of great importance to Science but can't get it published.

We still have to find the first example of this.

 

[Isaac0427]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

 

[sophiecentaur]

We still have to find the first example of this.

On PF, you mean? I don't think (s)he'd have been recognised.

 

[Charles Link]

We still have to find the first example of this.

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied. When the OP gives the response of "thank you, that helped to clarify the matter", it appears the "personal theory" might be worthy of some merit. There is always the trade-off that the Forum could become a circus of personal theories and inaccurate information, but good physics often comes with a series of iterations. Perhaps this has already been tried and it didn't work, thereby the need for the tighter control.

 

[CWatters]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

Questions are generally welcome provided you show some effort has been made to find your own answer first. Otherwise the first reply you get will be...What do you think and why?

 

[OmCheeto]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

I asked almost the exact same question about 8 years ago.
I got some awesome answers: What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?

Funny thing is, I never asked the question that I was referring to.