ZapperZ said:
1. Most of these people who are submitting their physics "theories" on open forums are not physicists. So who exactly are the "peers" they are looking for?
The more I read these discussions, the more I realize the folks who are submitting such theories aren't really looking for peers, but mentors. They use the term "peers," probably because they're thinking of it in more common usage or have heard the term "peer-reviewed" and have misconstrued the meaning, but really, it's mentors that they need. This is a critical thing they miss by not getting a formal education. When you think about what the crux of a doctoral program is, it's not the stuff we read in books, or the lab work we do, it's about working closely with an experienced mentor who guides you through the process. Try to think back to when you were a brand new grad student in your first year. How naive were you when reading journal articles? Did you take all the conclusions at face value? Did you know what to look for in the methods to convince yourself the conclusions were valid? Did you still accept everything taught in your physics (or other science) courses as known fact rather than realizing a good chunk of it is just the best we know on working theories? A good mentor teaches you how to critically read papers, gives you nudges in proper directions when teaching you how to formulate your own theories, teaches you how to write scientifically, and gives you a kick in the butt when you stray down a wrong path due to insufficient knowledge. The problem is, people keep asking for this as if there's some way to bypass getting a formal education. But, the thing is, qualified mentors already do this for their graduate students and do not have the time to spend mentoring someone who thinks they can skip graduate school and just leech that help without paying for it or offering anything in return (in return for the mentoring they receive, graduate students pay their debt in hard work in their mentor's lab, so there's a lot of give and take).
2. Since WHEN has a discussion of one's ideas in PUBLIC on an internet forum created ANY advancement in the body of knowledge in physics? Discussing them at a physics conference, in the hallway of a lab, during coffee break at a workshop, sure. But can you please point to me EVIDENCE that such an exercise in an internet forum has actually produce such "scientific advancement"? This us PURE SPECULATION without evidence, something quacks like to do.
I have to agree with SpaceTiger on this one. But, then it might also depend on how you define a scientific advancement. This may not be the way a major breakthrough comes about, but we do have grad students and professional scientists here who now don't need to wait until they are at conferences two or three times a year to share information about current research. NSF also recognizes the broad dissemination of knowledge to the public as an important objective of research they fund (at least in the biological sciences; I assume this is an agency-wide mission though), and this site is the sort of place where that can be done, though perhaps more so with a new publication than an unpublished theory. No longer do you have to send out a press release and pray the media doesn't garble the story, you can take time yourself to explain your findings to a broad audience in plain English.
Has this happened already? I don't know, but I wouldn't dismiss the medium as if it is useless for such a purpose. It is just as dangerous to dismiss something as impossible just because it has not been observed as it is to jump to the conclusion it does happen through over-speculation.
3. Einstein gained knowledge from his peers, but Einstein is also a peer or others. We don't have to backtrack and TEACH him physics the way we have to when dealing with Internet-submitted "theories" that are full of errors and misinterpretation of physics. Do NOT invoke Einstein's name in cases like this, because there are NO similarities here when you consider Einstein's background!
This goes back to the first point. There is a huge misconception that Einstein was not formally educated (I think perpetuated by the story that as a child, he flunked arithmetic...I don't know the veracity of that story, but it sure as heck doesn't mean he didn't learn and use math or get a formal education, it just means he wasn't born with that knowledge and maybe had to work a little harder to acquire it...it would be more of a statement on childhood development than of his education anyway). Then they cite that he was working as a patent clerk when he developed the theory of relativity as if it were evidence you don't need to be a scientist to develop a new theory. Of course, that is entirely untrue. In order to be a patent clerk, you need a high level of technical knowledge (I don't know about in Einstein's time, but it certainly requires a PhD nowadays). It also means you're exposed, on a daily basis, to a lot of cutting edge work (you're seeing people's patent applications for novel things they may not have even shared yet with the rest of the scientific community for fear of their product being stolen before protected by a patent).
The bottom line is that you still need to have a formal education to cut it in science. If someone approaches a scientist asking for a mentor, they will get a standard answer...apply to our PhD program and we can discuss the possibility. And once you have a PhD, that mentoring does not end. You go on to a post-doc, junior faculty get mentoring from senior faculty, senior faculty go on sabbaticals to get mentoring from other senior faculty in areas new to them. Scientists have a full plate of mentoring responsibilities, and are not going to waste their time on someone who isn't willing to put their nose to the grindstone and commit to a degree program.
