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

[sophiecentaur]

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.

It shows a deep disrespect for the subject
Joke:
"Can you play the piano?"
"Don't know, I've never tried."

 

[OCR]

Often those definitions are even circular.

Well...

​

 

[russ_watters]

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.

And the regular members haven't even gotten to see all that this thread has attracted...

 

[F X]

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.

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.

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.
• Philosophical discussions are permitted only at the discretion of the mentors and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal

In any case, you came up with original material, and it is being discussed, here on the forum.

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:

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/

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.

If I substitute the word "idea" for "theory", it is plain that Peter's points apply to almost all human relations, not just science.

That may be true, but it's not using the scientific method to be able to show it to be true.

Because the subject is how the predictions made by scientific theories get compared with experiment. That is well within the domain of science.

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?

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,

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/

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.

 

[F X]

What theory is that? If true, that would probably be the first time that's ever happened.

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.

And the regular members haven't even gotten to see all that this thread has attracted...

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.

 

[F X]

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?

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

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.

I'm not putting forward this hypothesis as a scientific theory. I'm putting it forward as a hypothesis about why meta-discussions about 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:

if that is the case, it's a different discussion.

Exactly. It's a meta-discussion, in the terms I used above, rather than an object-level discussion.

One could also argue that trying to understand the psychology of "why people believe as they do" is also science.

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.

From my experience, there is a great deal of interest

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 you 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.

 

[F X]

Meta-discussions like this one are about the rules that forums like PF adopt, and their rationale.

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.

https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-go-to-propose-a-new-physics-theory

 

[sophiecentaur]

Where can I go to propose a new physics theory?

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.

 

[OmCheeto]

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.

https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-go-to-propose-a-new-physics-theory

That first answer:

March 19, 2013
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.
...

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

Question:

OmCheeto; "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".​

Answers:

Ivan Seeking, et al; "The key is to ask the relevant questions without promoting a theory".

Danger commented on my last statement; "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".​

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 perpetual motion machine, 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, @mfb & @Garlic , for finally putting to rest, my warp drive theory.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

 

[Garlic]

ps. Thank you, @mfb & @Garlic , for finally putting to rest, my warp drive theory.

What did I do? I don't really remember anything about this...

 

[sophiecentaur]

What did I do? I don't really remember anything about this...

He holds a grudge for years. Like an elephant.

 

[houlahound]

This thread getting anywhere?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Not since the first few pages.

 

[OmCheeto]

What did I do? I don't really remember anything about this...

Don't you remember answering a question I asked about the W^- 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.

Dear OmCheeto,
You have received an infraction at Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums.
Reason: General Warning
-------
Off topic, thread hijack.

It was NOT 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.

 

[shawnr]

PeterDonis submitted a new PF Insights post

Why Won't You Look at My New Theory?

Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.

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

 

[phinds]

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

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed.