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

[PeterDonis]

Elitism is strongly discouraged in the USA.

Elitism in the sense of people having privileges that they haven't earned, yes. But even if we allow that scientists' grasp of their fields is a "privilege", it's one that they have earned, so the charge of "elitism" doesn't apply.

In fact, having to earn your position, in any field, used to be strongly encouraged in the USA. I'm not so sure it is now, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

[PeterDonis]

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/02/if-you-cant-explain-it-to-your.html

Nice article!

Another good counterexample would be a story that Kip Thorne relates in Black Holes and Time Warps. Oppenheimer had just started teaching as a professor at Caltech, and gave his first lecture. It was, as Thorne describes it, a "tour de force", covering multiple subjects and obviously showing a deep mastery of physics. But it did have one flaw. After the lecture was over and the students had left, Richard Tolman, who had sat in, told Oppenheimer, "Well, Robert, that was beautiful but I didn't understand a damned word."

 

[anorlunda]

Elitism in the sense of people having privileges that they haven't earned

That's one definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism gives three definitions. I was thinking of #1, and you are thinking of #3.

1. Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
2. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. Oppositions of elitism include anti-elitism, egalitarianism, populism and political theory ofpluralism. Elite theory is the sociological or political science analysis of elite influence in society: elite theorists regard pluralism as a utopian ideal.
3. 'Elitism' also refers to situations in which an individual assumes special 'privileges' and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves.

Note that I didn't accuse you of elitism. I said:

On the other hand, the line between the scientist's frustration and elitism is very thin.

 

[PeterDonis]

I didn't accuse you of elitism.

Yes, I know. I was responding to your statement that elitism is strongly discouraged in the USA. You're right that I was using that term in the third sense you gave.

The first definition, though, is the more interesting one. I think you were saying that elitism in this sense is also discouraged in the USA, and I think that's the case to an extent. But as I said before, earning your position is (or at least used to be) encouraged in the USA, and that kind of looks like encouraging elitism in the first sense. So I think the overall US attitude here is ambivalent.

 

[Drakkith]

That's one definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism gives three definitions. I was thinking of #1, and you are thinking of #3.

I'm not sure I think elitism applies here. From wiki's article on elite (linked to in your first definition): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite

Elite, sometimes "Élite" is a small group of powerful people in political and sociological theory, such as an oligarchy, that controls a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power in society. This group holds a superior position among the ordinary people and exercises greater privilege than the rest of the population.

From a brief reading of this article I don't think the term applies to scientists in general, as most of the people considered "elites" (at least here in the US) are political leaders, military leaders, or corporate owners. Additionally, the term appears to be used in the sense of "people who govern" or have vastly disproportionate social or economic privileges. Seeing as how scientists come from all walks of life, from many different institutions, and rarely have any power outside of terrorizing their grad students, I don't think any of the three uses of elitism apply.

However, my knowledge of all of this is extremely rudimentary, so I could be talking out of an orifice that would probably be censored if I were to say it.

 

[Scott Mayers]

So you find it a burden put in the work to learn the material before criticizing it, and you find it a burden to listen to what the experts say - i.e. having an actual two-way dialog. And yet it's the scientists who are arrogant.

Who says I personally haven't? The 'burden' though when people GO to forums should be on par with each other in respect. That is, unless a site is intended to dictate and not have open dialogue, authority is itself moot. The point of open discussion is to both share one's views and participate with each other to learn. And so the same can be said of those who also assert 'authority' here: if one is supposedly intelligent or qualified, they must defend themselves within the present argument rather than diverting others to go elsewhere to do their 'homework'.

I know what I know and can defend it. But I find it odd and absurdly presumptuous that anyone even with the best credentials via some institute should expect they aren't burdened equally to prove what they know in context of a discussion in practice if only to prove their worth. Assuming anyone go elsewhere is of the disturbing kind I equated with those religious apologists to demand one read the Bible first in order to qualify speaking of it. But the very investment requires as much justification as the OPs claim of why others DON'T read someone's theories, whether they be potentially worthy or not...PRACTICALITY!

The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else's 'formal' credentials. Do you follow?

 

[mfb]

I know what I know and can defend it.

Then publish it.
It is that easy.

 

[Isaac0427]

The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else's 'formal' credentials. Do you follow?

No good scientist puts faith in any theory before understanding it and it's proofs. No good scientist, however, is spectical of a theory before understanding it and its proofs. You need to learn something before judging it. And by learn it, I mean know the proofs used to prove that it is accurate. If you can't mathematically criticize the proof, you can't criticize the theory (without an experiment). The problem we are talking about here is the fact that people undermine a theory that they claim is incomplete or straight out incorrect without pointing out valid flaws in the theory and/or the proofs of the theory.

 

[Scott Mayers]

No good scientist puts faith in any theory before understanding it and it's proofs. No good scientist, however, is spectical of a theory before understanding it and its proofs. You need to learn something before judging it. And by learn it, I mean know the proofs used to prove that it is accurate. If you can't mathematically criticize the proof, you can't criticize the theory (without an experiment). The problem we are talking about here is the fact that people undermine a theory that they claim is incomplete or straight out incorrect without pointing out valid flaws in the theory and/or the proofs of the theory.

No, actually I've experimented with this very assumption. Even supposedly intellectual people are flawed to default to emotional/political biases. A bad title for a thread or a paper, is enough for a 'referee' or moderator to eliminate without reading it themselves.

What I think is severely NOT appropriately understood is that just because someone is potentially a non-scientist with potential radical ideas, they are not always as stupid to already know that 'homework' is a good thing. (It's why those religious apologists ask that others invest the effort to read their scriptures first with EQUAL validity) It treats these people by default as idiots instead of reversing the role to presume them 'innocent' up front. The question should be why some 'outsider' should not be privileged to their own skepticism and/or posit some novel idea even if they could be mistaken without being insulted by others' expectations of them to be inadequately prepared or insufficiently qualified up front. The act of people erring is precisely a function of processes in intellectual activity. But disrespecting the 'guest' only motivates them to close off their own trust in those insulting them with GOOD reason: they have an actual 'scientific' experience (as an 'experiment') that demonstrates the hypocrisy of some to feign authority on the skill of being 'scientific', but proving they may not, when they demand authoritative blind respect (Faith) and/or redirection to other sources first (like demanding one read another's sacred texts)! To show credibility only requires being willing participants in the process of learning with the respect towards them they'd hope could be reflected by their own example.

 

[Drakkith]

The 'burden' though when people GO to forums should be on par with each other in respect.

That burden is not shared equally between both parties. That is one of the main problems. Experience here at PF has given us overwhelming evidence that, in the context of the topic of this thread, the burden is usually placed almost entirely in the lap of the scientist.

That is, unless a site is intended to dictate and not have open dialogue, authority is itself moot. The point of open discussion is to both share one's views and participate with each other to learn.

If you want to discuss PF itself, then all you need to do is read the first rule on the Terms and Rules page:

We wish to discuss mainstream science.That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.

PF itself is NOT a forum to discuss anything and everything with no regard to authority. It is NOT a place for the equal sharing of ideas between those who know science and those who don't, just like a forum on RC Racing is not a place for me to go and expect my novice ideas to be given equal weight to those more experienced than I (LiPo batteries inferior to NiMH?). The fact that we wish to discuss mainstream science requires that we confine ourselves to using other sources as references, and since mainstream science is so overwhelmingly complex, that requires that we occasionally have to use an "argument from authority," in a logically valid way as rational wiki puts it:

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of logical arguments:

A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue.

A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

And so the same can be said of those who also assert 'authority' here: if one is supposedly intelligent or qualified, they must defend themselves within the present argument rather than diverting others to go elsewhere to do their 'homework'.

Except that the average person doesn't know enough to even understand any "defense", let alone construct a valid criticism of any topic in modern science. It's like me criticizing a professional quarterback (a position in american football if you aren't from the US) despite knowing next to nothing about the position or the game beyond what I remember from playing it as a kid.

In any case, this is rarely a problem for the average poster here at PF unless they are asking a question with a very complicated answer and have little knowledge of the topic. I mean, if you're asking about the complex conjugate root theorem despite not even knowing what an imaginary number is, then there's little help that other posters can give you since it would usually require several undergrad math classes just to cover the basic topics you need to know in order to understand the theorem.

I know what I know and can defend it. But I find it odd and absurdly presumptuous that anyone even with the best credentials via some institute should expect they aren't burdened equally to prove what they know in context of a discussion in practice if only to prove their worth.

Then it appears you've never had to explain something very complicated and abstract to someone else who knows nothing about it. Especially to someone who's already skeptical of it.

Assuming anyone go elsewhere is of the disturbing kind I equated with those religious apologists to demand one read the Bible first in order to qualify speaking of it.

Well, if you're going to speak on the subject matter of any book, including the Bible, it tends to help if you've actually read it. And if you haven't, then you should probably read an extensive number of reviews or cliff-notes, just to ensure you aren't getting biased information. And if you're not going to do that, then you should probably at least listen to a number of people who have given the book several in-depth reads and possesses the required skills to understand and explain it through several different viewpoints and contexts. And if not that, then I'd recommend at least take a class where you discuss various excerpts of the book, what context they were written under, and how they may or may not apply to today's society. If you haven't done any of the above, it's probably better for you to just listen when someone talks about it rather than to speak on it (except where said subject matter or related subject matter can also be studied in other books. In which you should probably have done one of the above about this other book).

But the very investment requires as much justification as the OPs claim of why others DON'T read someone's theories, whether they be potentially worthy or not...PRACTICALITY!

Indeed. It requires a substantial investment of time and effort to understand the details of any subject or topic, including science. Which is why when I ask someone about a topic I know next to nothing about, I don't expect my involvement to be anything more than asking a number of questions which only an occasional equal discourse if we reach something I am familiar with. But that's if I actually want to learn about the topic, of course. If I don't, well, I'd probably make false accusations based on my rudimentary understanding of the topic and then berate the other person when I can't understand what they've said. Or if I don't believe them. Or if I disagree with them. Or if they make any criticism of my own ideas. (all of which happen frequently here at PF)

The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else's 'formal' credentials. Do you follow?

I can't speak for V50, but I certainly don't follow. I don't feel that you've adequately looked into this topic nor do I feel that you've presented a valid, logical argument that should be taken seriously by anyone.

 

[Drakkith]

No, actually I've experimented with this very assumption. Even supposedly intellectual people are flawed to default to emotional/political biases. A bad title for a thread or a paper, is enough for a 'referee' or moderator to eliminate without reading it themselves.

Well, a bad title is a hallmark sign of a bad paper. One doesn't submit a paper to Nature entitled, "Stuff Electrons Do" if one actually wants to be taken seriously. I don't consider this a political or an emotional bias.

What I think is severely NOT appropriately understood is that just because someone is potentially a non-scientist with potential radical ideas, they are not always as stupid to already know that 'homework' is a good thing.

Unfortunately the evidence is against you. This is absolutely the case for almost every single instance of a personal theory I've ever dealt with or seen here at PF and I'm confident the other mentors share similar experiences to my own.

The question should be why some 'outsider' should not be privileged to their own skepticism and/or posit some novel idea even if they could be mistaken without being insulted by others' expectations of them to be inadequately prepared or insufficiently qualified up front.

That has already been answered, abundantly, in this thread. Please make more of an effort to actually read the thread and to understand it instead of continually bringing up the same question that has already been answered.

The act of people erring is precisely a function of processes in intellectual activity. But disrespecting the 'guest' only motivates them to close off their own trust in those insulting them with GOOD reason: they have an actual 'scientific' experience (as an 'experiment') that demonstrates the hypocrisy of some to feign authority on the skill of being 'scientific', but proving they may not, when they demand authoritative blind respect (Faith) and/or redirection to other sources first (like demanding one read another's sacred texts)! To show credibility only requires being willing participants in the process of learning with the respect towards them they'd hope could be reflected by their own example.

It appears you have no experience in dealing with people who have personal theories then. Or with science. Or with "sacred texts". In fact, I find literally everything you've written in this thread to be so convoluted and unchained from reality that I don't feel you have any idea what you're talking about. At all.

 

[Borg]

Whether intentional or not, this thread has been a real honeypot this week. Life imitates art...

 

[F X]

What's the relationship between this comment thread and the forum thread?

edit> never mind. I figured it out by experiment.

 

[F X]

I received an email with a link to this topic. The headline was/is

Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community
Fascinating Science Discussions from Last Week

I read the article, then I read some of the topic, trying to decide if I should respond. I came across the following

Well, if you're going to speak on the subject matter of any book, including the Bible, it tends to help if you've actually read it.

Several things came to mind. First, this topic is under GENERAL PHYSICS but does not appear to be a physics topic at all. It's either psychology or forum rules or philosophy, talking about science and human nature, but not physics. (That's just my observation, I have no peer reviewed sources published in mainstream journals to support it, it's just my observation of the topic so far)

Second, I don't need to read anything about the Bible, or some cult or new movement that postulates ideas or behaviors that violate the laws of physics, or common sense, before I can comment on the movement, it's literature or it's followers. If somebody claims they can channel spirits and predict the future, I am under no obligation of any kind to read their "2000 page holy mantra channeled literature" to debunk them in a general sense. Same for any other spiritual or religious movement.

That's not physics? That was my first point.

Third, the article states "Here at PF we have rules about this", but there is no link to the source. Where are the rules about new theories? I didn't even know there was such a rule. Much less rules about it. See my first point.

Fourth, I was wondering about the comments on the article page and here, so I posted, answering that question. The two are the same.

Fifth, and most important.

the more general question of why there is apparently so little interest in such personal theories, independently of whatever rules a particular forum might have

My experience with "personal theories" is very limited, since as you say, interest is very little. However, the one that caught my attention 8 years ago is still being discussed (argued as well), and turned out to be a correct theory, with experiments and evidence to back it up. It's one of the most fascinating things, and it all happened online in forums. The places that had rules and didn't allow discussions to develop (for whatever reasons) all ended up missing out.

This certainly doesn't mean anything other than what I just stated. Most new things are crackpots, but that does not mean every new thing is a crackpot idea. Just by the nature of things, a new idea will usually sound crazy, all the more so to any expert in a field. That doesn't mean it is.

Time and time again we see in the history of science that almost every new idea that actually was a new idea, is dismissed, attacked, mocked or just ignored. This is the paradigm changing ones, not your ordinary iPhone or Facebook idea. Billion dollar ideas of course are also mocked or ignored, but the inventor often has the satisfaction of laughing all the way to the bank. YouTube comes to mind.

Back to the question of "why we don't care about your crackpot idea" .

It's that for every really good idea, theory or inspiration, there are just so many that are TimeCube level, or worse, wrong in ways that are time consuming to explain, and even then you won't understand why you are wrong.

 

[jbriggs444]

Third, the article states "Here at PF we have rules about this", but there is no link to the source. Where are the rules about new theories? I didn't even know there was such a rule. Much less rules about it. See my first point.

The rules are required reading when you first join the forums.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

"
Non-mainstream theories:
Generally, in the forums we do not allow the following:

• Discussion of theories that appear only on personal web sites, self-published books, etc.
• Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion
• Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context
• Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science
• Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.
• Philosophical discussions are permitted only at the discretion of the mentors and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal

 

[mfb]

Second, I don't need to read anything about the Bible, or some cult or new movement that postulates ideas or behaviors that violate the laws of physics, or common sense, before I can comment on the movement, it's literature or it's followers. If somebody claims they can channel spirits and predict the future, I am under no obligation of any kind to read their "2000 page holy mantra channeled literature" to debunk them in a general sense. Same for any other spiritual or religious movement.

There is a huge difference between "speaking about the bible" and "speaking about claims made in the bible". The first one is about the origin of the book, how the stories there emerged and got propagated until they were written down, and so on. To discuss this, it is really useful to read the bible, or literature about the bible. Otherwise you cannot follow discussions about it. The second thing is about claims made in the bible. You don't need to read the bible to discuss the plausibility of Jesus walking over water, of course. Although it helps to know how the bible was put together to discuss how that description in the book could have emerged.

It's that for every really good idea, theory or inspiration, there are just so many that are TimeCube level, or worse, wrong in ways that are time consuming to explain, and even then you won't understand why you are wrong.

Without expertise in the field, everything will be at Timecube level.

 

[PeterDonis]

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.

Are you saying that a valid new scientific theory was discovered purely by forum posts? Please give specifics.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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).

 

[Nugatory]

Several things came to mind. First, this topic is under GENERAL PHYSICS 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)

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.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
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.
...

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.

 

[indimingo]

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.

 

[phinds]

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!

And, as I pointed out to you in another thread, that is not the purpose of this forum.

 

[PeterDonis]

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!

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.

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!

Exactly; which means that this kind of investment in pedagogy is highly unlikely to lead to anything of value.

it's a small price to pay

All past experience here on PF indicates that it is emphatically not a small price to pay--all the more so as it produces no real benefit anyway.

 

[indimingo]

And, as I pointed out to you in another thread, that is not the purpose of this forum.

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.)

 

[PeterDonis]

"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.

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.

 

[Dale]

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.

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.

 

[indimingo]

Can you give any actual examples of this happening?

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?

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.

I agree that someone that sees no value in something [debunking] will probably not find anything valuable. That is common-sense.

Exactly; which means that this kind of investment in pedagogy is highly unlikely to lead to anything of value.

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.

All past experience here on PF indicates that it is emphatically not a small price to pay--all the more so as it produces no real benefit anyway.

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.

 

[Dale]

how often does some random scientist publish and then somehow make it know that (s)he was inspired by some particular source?

All the time. That is one of the purposes of the references section of any scientific paper.

 

[indimingo]

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! G'night!

 

[Drakkith]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

No, I cannot (present party excluded.)

Why do you exclude "present party"? Either you can give an example or you can't. Which?

that boarders on a trick-question

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?

I agree that someone that sees no value in something [debunking]

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.

Learning/reinforcing concepts of known physics is clearly not as important for you as someone like me.

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 lots 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.

The "no benefit" portion of your reply is you opinion.

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.

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

Then you will have to read them somewhere besides PF. Sorry.

I simply think that they do have some key value that you may not appreciate or simply disagree with me over.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

Wishful thinking based speculation.

 

[mfb]

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!

I have never seen anything like this, and apparently no one else here did.

Crackpot "theories" usually fall in one of those groups:

• 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.

None of those could give any inspiration to scientists.

 

[sophiecentaur]

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't know what the problem is.

I like to consider it as at least some confirmation of the hypothesis I gave in the article , 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.