- #106
- 19,573
- 10,377
The response usually given to me is that gravity is a law. Thus the confusion of what scientific theory and law are.mfb said:My usual answer is something like "so is gravity. Do you expect us all to fall upwards tomorrow?"
The response usually given to me is that gravity is a law. Thus the confusion of what scientific theory and law are.mfb said:My usual answer is something like "so is gravity. Do you expect us all to fall upwards tomorrow?"
Giovanniontheweb said:The eagle can feel what you cannot and it can use it.
Charles Carter said:I get the feeling mentors and others here are pretty tired of answering such questions,
Charles Carter said:for a variety of reasons I believe Science to be suffering real credibility issues around reproducibility.
Charles Carter said:Yet news, whether USA Today or Scientific American, are not terribly discerning.
houlahound said:what do you guys think of my new cosmological model
I do agree. Intentions definitely have influence on our understandings.Borg said:Nice article PeterDonis. I liked the reasons why nonscientists choose B over A. From the crackpot threads that I've seen, it often seems that the basic motivation for them is wanting to be famous for coming up with a new theory - regardless of how little sense their theory makes. Some of them do go to great lengths to 'prove' themselves but they really don't know even the basics.
PeterDonis said:I dunno, it sounds just like string theory to me. Except for the ostrich part...
Greg Bernhardt said:Is it wrong to say, if you are this interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you'd need?
A tiny bit? No, it is pretty discriminatory -- and on purpose. Engineering is even more so. In certain disciplines/job types in most states you are required by law to have a 4-year degree in engineering and a state issued license to even call yourself an "engineer" (there are no such formal rules in research sciences as far as I know). Engineering used to be a trade and until fairly recently anyone could work for an engineer as an apprentice and then take the professional engineer exam. Not anymore.ComplexVar89 said:Should we be cast aside? After all, isolation is one of the surest paths to the echo-chamber effect, where one can't even see that they're wrong, because there's no one qualified around to tell them so.
I'd go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one has to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory.
Re: 1st point- Trust me I understand. And it's obvious many such as yourself devote a good deal of time to PF to promote interest in and understanding of physics. I have noted posts where, even to me, the OP seems , almost willfully, to not understand.PeterDonis said:More specifically, we can get tired of answering questions that have already been answered, either in FAQs here on PF or on other sites that we've linked to already numerous times. We do this in our free time, so we can't provide the same level of pedagogy that a school or a textbook does.
I would say the fundamental issue here is not reproducibility per se, but calling something "science" when it hasn't been reproduced (or more generally, when it hasn't been given the quality control checks that should be done before anything gets to be called "science").
Most definitely. And scientists themselves are often at fault, for not being up front and explicit about the level of confidence in various results, so that the lay public sees only two categories, "science" and "not science", instead of a spectrum of varying levels of confidence. So when something the public thought was "science" turns out to be wrong, the public's reaction is to assume that other stuff that was categorized as "science" must really be "not science" as well, instead of to recognize that the original claim didn't have very high confidence to begin with.
Things have always been that way. Throughout history, Scientists have relied on patrons - private or state. Some organisations run research departments which do 'blue skies' work and which produce nothing useful from some projects. Universities exist because of income from commercial firms. When it comes to getting funding, there can be as much skill in spinning the right tale as in carrying out the experiments.houlahound said:I believe a lot of money goes into the LHC by people looking to get a financial return from spin off's, IMO. The science is secondary.
ComplexVar89 said:I'd go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one has to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory.
If they don't want to go through this path then where are they to start from? No one can start from scratch and they must get their initial opinions from somewhere. If it's a non-standard start then it's very likely that the path will not have 'converged' with a viable finish. It's very common on Forums (though not so common on PF) for people to get petulant and throw a wobbler when their nonsense is not taken seriously. They identify themselves with Tesla (mostly). Enough said.Vanadium 50 said:If people don't want to go down this path,
The problem is that these days, going into scientific research is prohibitively expensive for many people (like me), especially if you're already paying off debts from your first time in school. I would love to spend all of my time studying physics rather than doing these intellectually non-stimulating computer programming tasks that I am paid to do every day. However, I would also prefer not to add $80k more debt to the debt I already have, and I certainly don't want to find myself living in poverty as a graduate student.sophiecentaur said:Maybe. But no one can expect to get to a good stage of understanding by superficial 'reading round' on the Internet and then submitting whacky ideas on discussion forums. There are alternatives to 'Institutions' but a Science Forum is certainly not sufficient.twiz_ said:This is a ridiculous question. There are so many reasons not to, all specific to different people.
I would change your description of "different people" to "exceptional and unusually gifted people". Would you expect to become a World Class Footballer from kicking a ball around on your own?
thefurlong said:The problem is that these days, going into scientific research is prohibitively expensive for many people (like me), especially if you're already paying off debts from your first time in school. I would love to spend all of my time studying physics rather than doing these intellectually non-stimulating computer programming tasks that I am paid to do every day. However, I would also prefer not to add $80k more debt to the debt I already have, and I certainly don't want to find myself living in poverty as a graduate student.
thefurlong said:The fact is that the troglodytes running my country have decided that encouraging people to go into scientific research is not a priority. Additionally, the prospect of doing university research is less than enticing at this point, given that university boards think that investing in frequent, safe, results is way more important than investing in attempts to truly innovate. These aspects of research create a fairly imposing barrier to entry for many people.
thefurlong said:How many innovators are there in this world who have fallen by the wayside because their true interest lies in making fundamental progress rather than incremental progress? How many others never reached their full potential because, in order to actually obtain knowledge, they have to sacrifice their financial well-being by doing the financial equivalent of purchasing a car every year for 4 years, or more.
thefurlong said:And heaven forbid they have a learning disability, which is just mild enough not to count as debilitating according to some arbitrary benchmark, but just severe enough to negatively affect their academic performance, which, in turn, affects the prestige of the institution that accepts them for research?
Vanadium 50 said: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, shouldn't the field be discriminatory?
PeterDonis said:I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.
However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn't world enough and time to consider everybody's idea. That's why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.
In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren't knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for your idea that you aren't willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.
votingmachine said:No one is actually limiting anyone from thinking creatively. But there is no requirement for anyone to pay attention. As the thread title asks: "Why won't you look at my new theory" ... the answer is because no one HAS to ... there needs to be a compelling argument or else it is likely a waste of time. The burden is on the individual to create a compelling argument, not on the audience to decipher a non-compelling argument.
Wee-Lamm said:I think though, that we each should be at least minutely open to ponder positions we have not considered before and not merely dismiss the thought because the poser lacks credentials.
Wee-Lamm said:Most people do deserve to be dismissed, for the most part, until they have proven they merit at least a cursory listen.
Wee-Lamm said:If we don't feel the thought deserves a response, even if only due to lack of credentials, we can simply not respond.
Wee-Lamm said:If we do respond, we should argue against the thought and not their having proven they've earned the right to present it.
PeterDonis said:Forum moderators often don't have that option. We have to try to maintain an acceptable signal to noise ratio. That means we have to do more than just not respond to posts that don't deserve a response; we have to draw a line beyond which we actively discourage such posts instead of just ignoring them.
Some posts are simply too vague or incoherent to even argue against. Sometimes there is no way to respond except to just inform the person that the post doesn't meet PF's rules, period.
Wee-Lamm said:you moderate well ... from what I've seen. :-)
I won't pretend to moderate, you and your peers do an excellent job already. As a mere poster, It is not my place to lament a poster for not adhering to forum rules.PeterDonis said:This sounds good on the surface, but then you say this:
So how do we tell when someone no longer deserves to be dismissed and has proven that they merit at least a cursory listen? The position I am taking is, we tell by seeing if they understand what is already known in the field under discussion, and can explain how their new idea relates to what is already known. If they can't demonstrate that, they don't merit a listen.
The PF rules on acceptable sources, which I referenced in the article, are an attempt to at least approximate the above. Note that the rules are not hard and fast; they don't say nobody without credentials will ever be listened to, period. But having credentials does make it easier to demonstrate that you understand what is already known.
An approximation is the best we're going to be able to do in any case, because, as I said before, there isn't enough time to consider every idea. We have to have a quick heuristic filter to make things manageable. If you are saying credentials aren't the right quick heuristic filter, what do you think is?
Laroxe said:I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows
Laroxe said:I have always considered it part of the remit of people working in science to help people understand their work, particularly if the scientist is in a publicly funded post, paid for by the very people they criticise.
Laroxe said:There is a lot written about the so called "crisis of confidence" in science, for scientists to continue to attribute this to the public's lack of understanding shows an amazing lack of insight into the role of their own behaviour.
Laroxe said:Explaining why an idea might be wrong because of some unappreciated basic facts, will often take less than 10 minutes
Laroxe said:I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it. Of course the fact that many are already in full time employment makes this impractical. I have always considered it part of the remit of people working in science to help people understand their work, particularly if the scientist is in a publicly funded post, paid for by the very people they criticise.
Failure to engage with the public and dismissal of ideas misses an opportunity to use the interest expressed and fuels conspiracy ideation, we then have the situation of people becoming overtly sceptical and failing to support the sciences. Worse still, in people who's ideas are simply ignored or dismissed, people feel insulted, dislike the associations with those who insult them and actively or passively work against the ideas they promote. Many in science bemoan the fact that so many people adopts what they refer to as irrational beliefs, because the scientists clearly don't understand that beliefs are more than facts. There is a lot written about the so called "crisis of confidence" in science, for scientists to continue to attribute this to the public's lack of understanding shows an amazing lack of insight into the role of their own behaviour. Explaining why an idea might be wrong because of some unappreciated basic facts, will often take less than 10 minutes
votingmachine said:Clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt never seems convincing to the person with foolish certainty.
PeterDonis said:Even non-clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt won't be convincing to the person with foolish certainty. The right thing for scientists to do in response to this is to continue to combat the idea that certainty is possible at all.
ZapperZ said:you can take this to the other extreme and gives the impression that scientists are uncertain about everything, and so, what's the point in listening to them?
ZapperZ said:I strongly hold the view that Helen Quinn has stated, that there ARE things that we can talk about with a very high degree of confidence about their validity.
I don't understand the example; you mean construction work? Yes, indeed, scientists are not qualified to do construction work. I'm an engineer moderator of the engineering section: We lock a thread about once a week due to the danger of unqualified construction or building systems engineering (structural, boilers and electrical systems mostly). It doesn't matter if that person is a scientist and I'm quite certain our scientist moderators are not hypocritical when it comes to the need for proper qualifications in other disciplines.Laroxe said:I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it.