Is the Majority Opinion Always Right?

[Jasongreat]

As much as i like this forum I have a question, what us the difference between a fact and an opinion? According to feynman, one should never trust authority. Therfore any truth is always subject to scientific debate, and as soon as we are told a concesses is true, by the very fact of being a concenses we should debate the facts.

I am of the opinion that we all have opinions, but that majority opinions alone do not negate our opinions. I believe that all valuable opinions come from the minority side. Can anyone show an opinion coming from the majority, where anything invaluable has come?

 

[DaveC426913]

It might help you to realize that PF's primary raison d'etre is to help students and others alike to understand currently-accepted, mainstream scientific knowledge. The seat of this knowledge is recognized to be known peer-reviewed articles and journals.

 

[Jasongreat]

It might help you understand PF's policies better if you realize that PF's primary raison d'etre is to help students and other alike to understand currently accepted scientific knowledge. The seat of knowledge is recognized as known peer-reviewed articles and journals.

I understand that, but can't peer reviewed be wrong? In the recent climatogy debate we hear that the science is settled, doesn't the fact that science is settled alone warrant extra discussion?

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe that all valuable opinions come from the minority side. Can anyone show an opinion coming from the majority, where anything invaluable has come?

This is a flaw in selective perception. You are taking for granted the vast, uncountable number of correct decisions that the majority agreed with.

If you always bet on the slowest horse you will be a very poor man. But what gets public attention is not the 99 people who (correctly) bet on the winning horse, but the one who did not.

 

[DaveC426913]

I understand that, but can't peer reviewed be wrong?

Of course. Anyone is free to publish their own paper in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating how wrong it is.

In the recent climatogy debate we hear that the science is settled, doesn't the fact that science is settled alone warrant extra discussion?

Who do we "hear" this from? That is a very politically-charged topic.

 

[Jasongreat]

Of course. Anyone is free to publish their own paper in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating how wrong it is.


Who do we "hear" this from? That is a very politically-charged topic.

I don't know if I would go that far, wasnt that the big point of climategate, that they were refusing to let dissenting opinions into the magazines?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know if I would go that far, wasnt that the big point of climategate, that they were refusing to let dissenting opinions into the magazines?

Not sure what we're talking about anymore. Are we still talking about PF?

Are we talking about PF's banning of climatology as a topic?

It's not because PF has an agenda to promote, it's that PF does not have the necessary pool of experts to objectively moderate the topic. It would not be right to let such a charged topic be run without strong guidance by a field expert.

 

[Jasongreat]

Not sure what we're talking about anymore. Are we still talking about PF?

Are we talking about PF's banning of climatology as a topic?

It's not because PF has an agenda to promote, it's that PF does not have the necessary pool of experts to objectively moderate the topic. It would not be right to let such a charged topic be run without strong guidance by a field expert.

I never had PF in my sights, this forum seems to me a very well run educational sight, in which I have learned more about getting my point across than any other time in my life. This site makes one think before speaking, which is never a bad idea.

In fact most other sites would have already had their fill of me, but PF seems very liberty minded.

The reason I am starting this thread, is that we are well aware of supporting opinion with fact, however my opinion is that we all have an opinion, one which we have spent our lifetimes refining, we have read, discussed and defined it over the years. Our opinion is as valid as any other fact, as long as we spend time thinking about and refining our theories. I am not saying that I am as smart as Feynman, but one should be able to challenges existing theories freely, the fact that a theory is correct will be readily apparent, as long as one is allowed to challenge that theory.

I am getting sick of the IMO tags on every theory, we shouldn't have to clarify, we are having an adult discussion. My belief is that all great things come from the minority, as well as all truth comes from the minority. When we have to prove our theories against the popular narrative facts get lost from time to time, since popular will is hardly ever the same as truth.

 

[checkitagain]

According to feynman, one should never trust authority.

\text{Then I shouldn't trust Feynman, who claims to be an authority,}

\text{at least in part, as to telling people who they should trust as an authority.}

 

[zoobyshoe]

As much as i like this forum I have a question, what us the difference between a fact and an opinion? According to feynman, one should never trust authority. Therfore any truth is always subject to scientific debate, and as soon as we are told a concesses is true, by the very fact of being a concenses we should debate the facts.

I am of the opinion that we all have opinions, but that majority opinions alone do not negate our opinions. I believe that all valuable opinions come from the minority side. Can anyone show an opinion coming from the majority, where anything invaluable has come?

If everyone accepts that x is true, then the first person to happen to conceive a good reason that x might not be true is automatically, but completely incidentally, in the minority. In other words, he's not right because he's in the minority, but because he realizes, based on good logic, that x might not be true, when others don't see it yet. It could also easily happen, though, that a person could suppose some fact, x is not true for illogical reasons. His arguments might be ridiculous and unpersuasive, and he'll remain in the minority. Since either case could be true, there's no reason for you to automatically equate minority opinion with correctness.

A case where the majority was right: Before Morley-Michelson, pretty much everyone was unhappy with the notion of the ether. It was a cumbersome concept, but no one had a good solid reason to reject it. The Morley-Michelson experiment killed the notion of the ether, pretty much confirming the majority opinion there was something very off about it. Here, the majority view turned out to be the right one. Someone clinging to a minority view, that there had to be an ether, would be completely unable to support that view. It would be just about guaranteed to be a mistake to apply your rule-of-thumb, that the right opinion is most likely the minority opinion, to this case. I'm sure there are many similar examples.

Feynman wasn't saying anything so extravagant as 'If an authority says it, it's wrong,' or anything like that. He was saying 'Don't assume it's right just because an "authority" said it'. This is much like the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius In Verba, which, loosely translated means: Don't Take Anyone's Word For It. One of the examples Feynman gives is the Millikan oil drop experiment. For a time after Millikan published his results, people were replicating the experiment, not getting the same results as his, and fudging their results to match his! Their own results didn't match his, so they assumed they had made a mistake, and not him. In their mind, the "authority" had to be right. It turned out, though, that Millikan had miscalculated the charge of an electron. In this case, the notion that the authority must be right, lead people to cheat their own results to match the erroneous "authority" results.

So, while you, or anyone, should feel free to question any consensus or authority if you think you have a better argument, better logic or better data, your suggested rule-of-thumb, that 'if it's the consensus it should be automatically debated', is probably just as erroneous as saying 'if it's the consensus it should automatically be taken as fact'.

Whether or not an opinion is persuasive should be based on the reliability of the data and soundness of the logic behind it. It's majority/minority status is probably ultimately irrelevant. At the present time the majority opinion is just about guaranteed to be the most vetted, but that hasn't always been the case, and may not always be, and may not actually be true at the present time in some small percentage of cases where it's assumed to be true.

 

[Drakkith]

The reason I am starting this thread, is that we are well aware of supporting opinion with fact, however my opinion is that we all have an opinion, one which we have spent our lifetimes refining, we have read, discussed and defined it over the years. Our opinion is as valid as any other fact, as long as we spend time thinking about and refining our theories. I am not saying that I am as smart as Feynman, but one should be able to challenges existing theories freely, the fact that a theory is correct will be readily apparent, as long as one is allowed to challenge that theory.

Who is "we"? The average person does NOT refine, discuss, or define most of their opinions in any meaningful way. They have an opinion that is usually based on preconceptions and are loathe to even allow someone to challenge it. Everyone is guilty of this in some way, some in more ways or less ways than others. The "Fact" of the matter is that no ones opinion is a valid fact. You can spend your life developing your opinions on a subject, and in fact many people do, but rarely are these opinions ever "facts".

Also, Scientific theories MUST be able to be challenged or they are not scientific theories. Period. You are 100% free to challenge each and every theory that exists. Just not on PF. That is not the point of the forum. If we allowed everyone to post their own theories or reasons why the mainstream theories were wrong it would be utter chaos on the forums. From what I hear from members that have been on PF longer than myself, they have tried this several times, each time led to disaster.

I am getting sick of the IMO tags on every theory, we shouldn't have to clarify, we are having an adult discussion. My belief is that all great things come from the minority, as well as all truth comes from the minority. When we have to prove our theories against the popular narrative facts get lost from time to time, since popular will is hardly ever the same as truth.

The problem is that science itself is a "best guess". To deny this is utterly foolish. The only correct thing you can say when you get right down to it is "According to our current knowledge" or something similar. One of the reasons so many people have a problem with science is that many people who understand science do not explain that all of science is only accurate to a certain degree, and most people don't know enough about science to realize this. Heck, even many people that actually know a lot about science don't really realize this.

 

[cmb]

It might help you to realize that PF's primary raison d'etre is to help students and others alike to understand currently-accepted, mainstream scientific knowledge. The seat of this knowledge is recognized to be known peer-reviewed articles and journals.

On this point, there is a snag I have noticed a few times. It was also indirectly highlighted in a recent thread about the qualifications of the advisors/mentors. In this other thread, it was pointed out that a poster need not express their qualifications, because it is a function of what they say that counts, not their authority.

Yet for publications, it's not what they say that counts, it's their authority!

This was pretty self-contradictory.

And just to emphasise the point, there have been a few threads now where I have posted/quoted a journal referenced paper, or the comments of a well-respected 'establishment' figure, only for a mentor or other person (who is not encumbered with a need to express their qualifications here) to then go on and comment that the content of that reference or opinion should be disregarded as it is wrong in some way. And the [seemingly contradictory] way this site works means that a moderator with unpublicised qualifications has more authority to declare whether a peer-reviewed paper is 'right or wrong', and worthy or not for further discussion.

So, there are contradictions on this site regarding what does or does not count as 'main-stream' - and so their should be! Science is a live, moving, growing humanised activity with all the faults and predilections that go along with a human activity. I just wish PF would give me less of the impression of this 'this is OK on this occasion, but not OK on that occasion' inconsistency.

Like the OP says, it seems to me that anyone who makes a personal observation as part of a discussion has to surround it with defensive caveats to avoid the wrath of the moderators - and I'm talking even about referenced peer reviewed material that might be condemned as a minority opinion -. But this just slows down a scientific discussion if everyone has to 'watch their backs' and judge whether something is mainstream 'enough' to discuss, or not.

In short, I think PF should recognise self-consistent arguments and debates, rather that simply whether they are discussing main-stream, because 'main-stream' is, itself, very subjective at the frontier of the sciences and so it must be if there are any advances left to be made.

I'm not saying there should be an open-house on any-old topic, and I recognise a well-intentioned (and historic) need to keep the level of unsupported chat to a minimum. But an objective way to determine whether something is main-stream and peer-reviewed 'enough' for discussion is needed, and I don't see that that is ever going to be really possible. Sometimes a discussion will be rightly locked early before it gets out of hand, sometimes a discussion will get locked that was 'legitimate' and might have drawn out a good debate. I can't see how that can be avoided. It seems to me it's just part of the make-up of the site.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

An opinion is a subjective belief, a fact is a verifiable objective observation. Opinions based on facts are the best kind for example:

I believe it will snow tomorrow because our meteorological data indicates a >90% chance

The first part half was the opinion, the second half was the fact. Arguably it is a valid opinion because it is based on objective and verifiable facts.

Importantly whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion not all opinions are equally valid. There is a strong tendency (in the UK at least) that from a young age children are taught that everyone's entitled to their own opinion and this is conflated with opinions being equally valid. This is not the case, the validity of an opinion is determined by the quality and quantity of facts it is based on. In the scientific world we maximise the validity of our opinions (I would argue far more than any other field) by being in the business of elucidating and studying verifiable objective observations.

Yet for publications, it's not what they say that counts, it's their authority!...And the [seemingly contradictory] way this site works means that a moderator with unpublicised qualifications has more authority to declare whether a peer-reviewed paper is 'right or wrong', and worthy or not for further discussion.

You have this totally wrong. Anyone can publish a paper in a scientific journal, all they have to do is submit it and have it good enough to pass peer-review and be published. We determine whether or not a journal is allowed if it is on the Thomson Reuters journal list whose citation reports (things like H-indexes) determine the validity of a journal.

 

[cmb]

Anyone can publish a paper in a scientific journal, all they have to do is submit it and have it good enough to pass peer-review and be published. We determine whether or not a journal is allowed if it is on the Thomson Reuters journal list...

Thanks for that clarification, I was not aware of this having been specified anywhere (maybe I missed it).

Anyhow, the issue here is that if I make reference to a paper from a journal on this list that it might still be condemned here as a topic that should not be discussed on the forum.

So I'm glad I've been made aware of PF's point-of-reference. But my point is/was that, with this journal list, it still appears that a PF authority may overrule (by persons with qualifications the reader can only guess at) the discussion of a paper under such a journal title, for either being a disputed topic or one that has been superseded by 'new theories'. The reader is sometimes put in a position to take a PF writer's word for it, over a published article.

 

[cmb]

Anyone can publish a paper in a scientific journal...

...though they usually also need funds to pay for the publication... and then more funds to download their own paper!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So I'm glad I've been made aware of PF's point-of-reference. But my point is/was that, with this journal list, it still appears that a PF authority may overrule (by persons with qualifications the reader can only guess at) the discussion of a paper under such a journal title, for either being a disputed topic or one that has been superseded by 'new theories'. The reader is sometimes put in a position to take a PF writer's word for it, over a published article.

This is a private forum, moderator decisions are final. PF is the great place it is because of moderation, not in spite of it. Mentors have good reasons for acting the way they do. It is in our interest to keep PF at the high standard that it is, if this means shutting off threads that could have a legitimate discussion (but have gone down another path) then so be it.

...though they usually also need funds to pay for the publication... and then more funds to download their own paper!

That is not the fault of the scientific community, that is the fault of the economic world we live in.

 

[cmb]

It is in our interest to keep PF at the high standard that it is, if this means shutting off threads that could have a legitimate discussion (but have gone down another path) then so be it.

Absolutely. I mentioned this myself, and aimed to phrase it as a positive thing. Yes, I accept that there is an element of cutting-the-cloth further over towards the 'locked' side of discussions, and by so doing the idea is that you prevent cross-over. Accepted.

All I am asking is whether this is a particularly objective process. I do not think it is, yet I get the impression that it is 'marketed' as being objective. I'm quite comfortable with 'PF' saying 'this is how we do it, and it's up to us, it's not for objective discussion'. But I get the impression you'd like to think it is objective?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

All I am asking is whether this is a particularly objective process. I do not think it is, yet I get the impression that it is 'marketed' as being objective.

It's up to a mentor decision (often after discussion with other mentors) as to whether or not to lock a thread. It's always going to be a slightly subjective process as to when a mentor thinks a discussion has gone off-topic or is inappropriate or there is nothing more to say etc etc however there is almost always consensus amongst mentors. We have objective guidelines for mentoring and inevitably we are going to subjectively enforce them (because "close a thread when it is only generating off-topic bickering" is objective but measuring what counts as off-topic bickering has a large subjective element).

So whilst we don't have a totally objective tick-list of reasons to enforce actions (such a thing is not possible) we do have a team of trusted and experienced mentors who work together to ensure that our moderation is sensible and within the PF rules.

 

[DaveC426913]

All I am asking is whether this is a particularly objective process. I do not think it is, yet I get the impression that it is 'marketed' as being objective. I'm quite comfortable with 'PF' saying 'this is how we do it, and it's up to us, it's not for objective discussion'. But I get the impression you'd like to think it is objective?

It is as objective as possible. It's been refined over 8 years or so from times when the board was rife with crackpots and mudslinging arguments. PF takes the quantity (250,000+) and the quality of its members (many, many professionals) as an indication that it's successful.

There's a phrase in the world of economics (referring to capitalism, but applicable here) that goes:

Yes this system is flawed. But of all the systems out there, it is the least flawed.

 

[phoenix:\\]

As much as i like this forum I have a question, what us the difference between a fact and an opinion? According to feynman, one should never trust authority. Therfore any truth is always subject to scientific debate, and as soon as we are told a concesses is true, by the very fact of being a concenses we should debate the facts.

I am of the opinion that we all have opinions, but that majority opinions alone do not negate our opinions. I believe that all valuable opinions come from the minority side. Can anyone show an opinion coming from the majority, where anything invaluable has come?

(EDIT) refer to checkitagain. But I believe that is a simplification with what I said and doesn't get at the real grit of what Feynman was trying to say, of course we shouldn't trust exclusively one source. Science from my understanding is mostly an objective field or should be objective. However if it works, it works for the time being. But I don't exactly get what you're trying to say either? Primarily because authorities in science are observers of phenomenon that report the results/happenings of the reality we live in. Of course we cannot test everything individually, but we rely on the tests and results of other scientists conducting the same experiment, and if it has been proven to be sufficient, we having a working knowledge of it. We shouldn't trust those sources either?

I agree with Dave.

 

[Jasongreat]

(EDIT) refer to checkitagain. But I believe that is a simplification with what I said and doesn't get at the real grit of what Feynman was trying to say, of course we shouldn't trust exclusively one source. Science from my understanding is mostly an objective field or should be objective. However if it works, it works for the time being. But I don't exactly get what you're trying to say either? Primarily because authorities in science are observers of phenomenon that report the results/happenings of the reality we live in. Of course we cannot test everything individually, but we rely on the tests and results of other scientists conducting the same experiment, and if it has been proven to be sufficient, we having a working knowledge of it. We shouldn't trust those sources either?

I agree with Dave.

I can't remember the last time one of my threads had such a discussion. :)

How is it that if I spout 'known' knowledge, i never hear another word, if I spout my opinion I spend the rest of the day backing it up? Which is closer to the truth, the one discussed, or the one given preferential treatment?

I see your point, but should we trust scientists conducting experiments, or should we trust the discussions resulting from those experiments? One scientist could feel his/her method is beyond reproach, should we discuss it, or should we just accept it based on the scientist doing the experiments? When do we enter a logical fallacy?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How is it that if I spout 'known' knowledge, i never hear another word, if I spout my opinion I spend the rest of the day backing it up? Which is closer to the truth, the one discussed, or the one given preferential treatment?

Obviously that depends on what you say, people are more keen to debate opinions because they can be quite contentious especially in fields where there gaining objective facts is hard to impossible (just take a peek at the politics forum for that).

As for "closer to the truth" I don't like that statement because I don't like the term "truth". If we go by the metric that truth is what is correct then it can be either. There could be facts (which remember are objectively verifiable observations) about a subject that are correct or there could be non but someone has an opinion that turns out to be right.

Remember that the best (i.e. most valid) opinions are those based on facts.

I see your point, but should we trust scientists conducting experiments, or should we trust the discussions resulting from those experiments? One scientist could feel his/her method is beyond reproach, should we discuss it, or should we just accept it based on the scientist doing the experiments? When do we enter a logical fallacy?

Your trust in scientists as a whole is given because it has been earned through the benefits of the scientific method. If a scientist tells you their method is the best it is up to you whether or not you trust them (you could of course examine their data and see for yourself but it may be outside of your field). You could of course ask for some simple evidence such as getting them to provide whatever it is they are promising. Another scientist might say it is not the best method. At this point it would be best to step back and let them have it out which scientists do all the time. Constantly there are back-and-forth peer-review publications on a topic each gathering more data (which if done well can count as facts) until eventually the topic is answered.

 

[Deveno]

it is possible, even likely, that the next Einstein, or Bohr, or (insert favorite scientist/mathematician name) here, could receive a poor reception on these forums, because knowledge is a double-edged sword: there is an invested interest in preserving/propagating the status quo, if for no other reason than its proven track record.

new ideas are often dismissed out-of-hand by peer-reviewed journals, and discouraged at well-established universities, because the vast majority of new ideas aren't that good. so, while, statistically speaking, this is a valid way of keeping standards up, anything new of genuine value has an uphill battle seeing the light of day.

on the other hand, new ideas from established scholars with proven track records and publications, might get more attention than they are worth, because of the source. there's a time-lag from inception to acceptance in the scientific world (indeed, in the world in general).

these forums have made a conscious decision to take the fallout that comes with raising the bar higher, rather than lower. the consensus seems to be that so far, this is serving the intended purpose. while this may rankle the few (and perhaps even the many on occasion), given the sheer numbers of people posting and reading threads here, doing otherwise would no doubt be counter-productive.

does some gold get tossed out with the garbage? sure it does. but that's a small price to pay, for having higher-quality gold left in the pan.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

it is possible, even likely, that the next Einstein, or Bohr, or (insert favorite scientist/mathematician name) here, could receive a poor reception on these forums, because knowledge is a double-edged sword: there is an invested interest in preserving/propagating the status quo, if for no other reason than its proven track record.

new ideas are often dismissed out-of-hand by peer-reviewed journals, and discouraged at well-established universities, because the vast majority of new ideas aren't that good. so, while, statistically speaking, this is a valid way of keeping standards up, anything new of genuine value has an uphill battle seeing the light of day.

on the other hand, new ideas from established scholars with proven track records and publications, might get more attention than they are worth, because of the source. there's a time-lag from inception to acceptance in the scientific world (indeed, in the world in general).

these forums have made a conscious decision to take the fallout that comes with raising the bar higher, rather than lower. the consensus seems to be that so far, this is serving the intended purpose. while this may rankle the few (and perhaps even the many on occasion), given the sheer numbers of people posting and reading threads here, doing otherwise would no doubt be counter-productive.

does some gold get tossed out with the garbage? sure it does. but that's a small price to pay, for having higher-quality gold left in the pan.

This forum is intended to be a tool for teaching and discussing science. We have made a conscious decision not to allow non-peer-reviewed research, we may not be able to say "The 21st Century Einstein first posted his theory on Physics Forums" but we're ok with that. Like you say we prefer to have high quality teaching and discussions rather than accept a different standard.

Regarding new ideas I'm not sure about them being less accepted nowadays. I think the standards are higher now because there is more to overcome; any new theory must not only explain things better but it must be able to explain everything that it is intending to replace. Sure it may be harder for average Jane Doe patent office worker to get her idea published but that's because it is so easy for anyone to write and produce these days. There are uncounted thousands of personal theories out there in cyberspace, many that get sent to be published. Overall we have a better system. Peer-review in the 21st century is a relatively mature system that allows us to generate the technological marvels we all take for granted. We might ignore an outlandish theory that is really a theory of everything written by a random person on their coffee breaks but the sheer effort that we'd have to expend to trawl through anyone and everyone's musings would be uneconomic. In effect no-one would listen to Einstein today because it would be impossible to hear him over everyone else.

Perhaps that will change in the future. Software is already being used and develop to semantically check text to produce summaries and reports and computers have been used to develop their own maths from simply feeding in data. Perhaps in the future if you're not from a trusted university/institution you can send your manuscript to a server run by nature that will check what you say for logical consistency and check your claims against what we already know before rejecting it or tentatively passing it for peer-review. That's a bit of a science fiction idea but there's always scope to improve

 

[cmb]

Peer-review in the 21st century is a relatively mature system that allows us to generate the technological marvels we all take for granted.

I'll not be disagreeing with you on this (or the general thrust of your points), but could you give an example of where peer review was essential to any given technological marvel?

I would tend to think most technological marvels were cut-and-dried and proved out behind [relatively] closed doors before publication.

Surely, if a technology is that good that it is a mavel the modern world is based on, then it would've come through the expense of some group/company/business who invested to develop it and therefore was proven and likely filed for patent long before it went into published peer-reviewed print, no?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'll not be disagreeing with you on this (or the general thrust of your points), but could you give an example of where peer review was essential to any given technological marvel?

Sure: almost every medicine or medical device (infact I would extend that to any biotechnology). Also computers and electronic technologies rely on peer-reviewed physics to work even if the technology itself didn't necessarily come direct out of peer-reviewed literature.

 

[cmb]

Sure: almost every medicine or medical device (infact I would extend that to any biotechnology). Also computers and electronic technologies rely on peer-reviewed physics to work even if the technology itself didn't necessarily come direct out of peer-reviewed literature.

Not sure biotech stands out as a technology on which the modern world relies, though I agree it has been well-enabled by peer-review stuff.

I think we'd still have much the same medicine and computers if we did not have peer-reviewing. I would tend to suggest most of the enablement for those technologies has been the free market and the notion of intellectual property (justifying considerable corporate expense to develop them).

I'm thinking of semi-conductors and other assorted electrical kit, a plethora of Tesla and Edison inventions (what peer-reviewed articles did they need?) and various electronic paraphernalia that were a route to understanding the atom rather than originating from knowledge of the atom (Fessenden radio, linear accelerators, Lawrence cyclotron, etc.) aeroplanes, rockets, jet engines, televisions - all designed by lone inventors that were not only overlooked by the establishment but that were positively discouraged. The clearest published material we have that show the route and processes of their thinking are patents - original, unprecedented yet enabled ideas - rather than original journal papers.

I think there are examples of 20th C tech that originated from studying peer-reviewed papers - plenty of 'evolutionary' chemistry that lead to breakthroughs following many baby-steps, the best example I would suggest being nuclear bombs. I'd argue that this originated from the Curie's work starting with the separation of uranium ore, through Bodenstein, Boethe, Becker, Chadwick. Finally Szilard took all that and tentatively put the pieces together to predict neutron chain reactions [before fission processes were even discovered] and who promptly invented - by a secret UK patent issue (does all come full circle back to 'private' ideas again?) - nuclear reactors and, ultimately, uncontrolled chain fission-reactions following the suggestion of Noddack and the work of Hahn, Meitner, and Strassmann in response to Fermi's publications. So I agree there are cases where peer-review works for 'big science'... but maybe there are cases where it might have been better if folks had kept it a secret until the technology is better understood and under control!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Not sure biotech stands out as a technology on which the modern world relies, though I agree it has been well-enabled by peer-review stuff.

I think we'd still have much the same medicine and computers if we did not have peer-reviewing. I would tend to suggest most of the enablement for those technologies has been the free market and the notion of intellectual property (justifying considerable corporate expense to develop them).

I totally disagree. I don't mean this offensively at all but you have a huge ignorance of the life sciences. The entire field of biochemistry has exploded in the last 50 years, the vast bulk of that research has been done by labs that publish their results in peer-reviewed literature. This has contributed to our sophisticated understanding of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics (all of molecular cell biology) etc etc etc. No private company would be able to fund and perform all that research, it is not the "free market" that gets research done but worldwide open collaboration. Private enterprises aren't bad for research don't get me wrong and once the research is there they're great at developing products but to suggest that without peer-review we would have much of the same medicine is just fallacious.

 

[cmb]

I totally disagree. I don't mean this offensively at all but you have a huge ignorance of the life sciences.

Somewhat a tautology, no? :shy:

If I am ignorant of life sciences then it is inevitable that I wouldn't think it stands out as a technology the modern world relies on!

I mean, I've agreed with you that that field has been well-served by peer-review. So as I've never been affected by biotech, to my knowledge, and I cannot think of anyone I know who has had any cause or reason to have come into contact with benefits arising from biotech research, then I don't think it yet figures as a main aspect of the modern world. It is a nice-to-have, arising from advanced tech, that makes a fine contribution to the modern world, but I don't see it as a defining technology that enables the modern world.

I've no argument to pick with your views, I just don't think there is a strong enough case to claim peer review is as important to the modern world as you inferred. It plays its part, just as IP, venture capital, wars, &c., also provide stimulus to technological development.

 

[chiro]

Hey Jasongreat.

Good question that has sparked some great answers.

My take on this is that ultimately in the end you have to make up your own damned mind.

If you respectfully disagree or need another opinion then you will have to probably go elsewhere to find it and also to find other people wishing to discuss it.

As Dave pointed out, this forum has gone through an evolutionary process where they have experienced lots of different stages including ones that have allowed people to publish personal theories. It has been a reaction from some of the members that this should be discontinued and that subsequent forum policy should be revised as to steer the direction of the forum into the vision of part of its community and its founders.

When you come to this forum you will sacrifice some things for others just like most things. If you don't agree with people and can't voice your opinion then you will probably have to find somewhere where you can. Thankfully the internet has so many communities that it should not be hard to do this.

Just for your information I don't agree with everything on here or how everything is run, but never the less I find this a valuable source of knowledge, wisdom and insight and for that reason alone I find both the members and their contributions on this forum to be highly valuable.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Somewhat a tautology, no? :shy:

I was talking about medicine more than biotech and the fact that you don't recognise biotech doesn't mean that it isn't everywhere around you. For instance if you are American there is a good chance that a lot of the crops you eat are genetically modified.

Mainly however I was referring to the development of medicine. No company or VC could develop any medicine without relying on the extensive knowledge of biology that peer-reviewed science has uncovered in the last 50 years at least.

 

[ThomasT]

I am of the opinion that we all have opinions ...

I have to agree with you on that. But of course, that's just my opinion.

But seriously, I think you, or somebody, was making the point that a lot of interesting PF threads have been locked for what some might consider dubious subjective reasons. Well ... yeah. PF is a "politically correct" forum. If you want to explore an idea that lies outside the domain of mainstream political or scientific dogma, then PF is definitely not the place to do that. PF is not the place to present innovative ideas about anything. The point being that if your innovative idea has any merit, then you can write a paper about it and submit it for peer review. If it's accepted for peer review and published, then it can be talked about at PF. The General Discussion and Politics and World Affairs forums are a bit less picky. But there are certain forbidden topics ... such as criticizing Israeli policies and actions wrt to Palestinians. I'm not sure why this is the case, but it is. So, don't do that. Also, theories of governmental conspiracies are off limits. But theories of nongovernmental conspiracies, especially if the conspiracies are anti-governmental, seem to be ok.

 

[DaveC426913]

You misunderstand.

PF is a "politically correct" forum.

Most abused phrase of the 20th century.

PF is not politically correct. PF has a mandate and does a superior job of adhering to it. No site can be everything to everyone. But this site is something to a quarter million people.

If you want to explore an idea that lies outside the domain of mainstream political or scientific dogma, then PF is definitely not the place to do that.

Correct. You say that like it's a bad thing. You should have been here when it was a swamp of crackpots, all with their "innovative ideas".

But there are certain forbidden topics ... such as criticizing Israeli policies and actions wrt to Palestinians. I'm not sure why this is the case, but it is.

I think if you give it, say, three seconds of thought, you will realize why. It would have taken you less time than it took to write that.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

PF is a "politically correct" forum. If you want to explore an idea that lies outside the domain of mainstream political or scientific dogma, then PF is definitely not the place to do that.

It's not a case of political correctness, PC is all about making sure that what you say and do doesn't offend other ethnicities, genders, sexualities, ages etc. Neither is there a scientific dogma as a dogma is a doctrine that is asserted to be true and held to be unquestionable. What I'm trying to say is that words have meanings, be careful how you use them. The way you have written this is painting PF as being an authoritarian group that doesn't allow questioning of doctrine which is not the case.

This is a science forum for the teaching and discussion of science. To make the forum manageable and promote a good environment to achieve our goal we do not allow over-speculation or discussion of theories that are not accepted by mainstream science. The bench mark for approval in mainstream science is to have peer-reviewed research showing objective data as evidence in support of a hypothesis. It is erroneous to conflate this with dogma.

The point being that if your innovative idea has any merit, then you can write a paper about it and submit it for peer review. If it's accepted for peer review and published, then it can be talked about at PF.

Precisely.

The General Discussion and Politics and World Affairs forums are a bit less picky. But there are certain forbidden topics ... such as criticizing Israeli policies and actions wrt to Palestinians. I'm not sure why this is the case, but it is. So, don't do that.

Some topics (and I do not know of any PF policy regarding this one) are banned because it does not seem possible for members to have a proper and rational discussion regarding them. Others are banned because we lack qualified staff to moderate the issue and lastly some topics are banned because they are popular pseudo-science and we have no interest in threads starting time and time again to debunk them.

Also, theories of governmental conspiracies are off limits. But theories of nongovernmental conspiracies, especially if the conspiracies are anti-governmental, seem to be ok.

If you see a post (including a moderation decision) that you feel violates the rules of the site then report it.

 

[ThomasT]

@ Dave and Ryan,
Thanks, I agree with your points.

 

[cmb]

Neither is there a scientific dogma as a dogma is a doctrine that is asserted to be true and held to be unquestionable.

I think you've just stumbled into a philosophical matter there.

Could it not be argued that scientific dogma claims that the physics of today will apply tomorrow, and that this is an assertion that is not fully proven merely by showing that today's physics is the same as yesterdays?

If I argue that a day in the future will dawn when the underlying behaviour of physics will be different to that of physics in the previous day, is this not questioning the unquestionable? There is simply no way I can prove that, but equally there is no way that I can be proved wrong. It would, therefore, be dogmatic to argue either way.

The assumption that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning is just that, an assumption. It is in the nature of science that we consider it 'proven' that it will inevitably rise, because we believe we understand all the basic features of what the Sun is and celestial mechanics and all the other things that make us oh-so-clever.

But just consider if it did not do so? Let's say the Sun just snuffed itself out. We feel pretty sure, to many many 9's of probability, that this would not happen. But what if it did? What would happen? Would science be rejected? ...No, what would happen would be that 'science' would then go looking for a rational explanation as to why the Sun did not rise, and it would accommodate the new phenomena within it (for as long as there would be 'scientists' left to do science, that is!).

Science generally regards matters shown to >2sigma consistency to be proven, and >6sigma probability to be unquestionable, does it not? But if a 7th sigma event comes along, we get all excited and science extends itself to incorporate the phenomena.

So I do not agree that science does not consist of certain dogmatic principles, but I hope you will agree that there is a fundamental different between science and doctrine, and it is that science seeks to question its own dogma, and will refresh it when it is no longer fit to describe and predict all that we know. Doctrine has fixed dogma that seeks to control knowledge so it fits the dogma, whereas science has this sort of 'provisional dogma' that it seeks to update. It sounds contradictory at first sight, but I'd describe science as actually going looking for why it is wrong (and if it does not question itself, then it isn't science!).

I guess you might argue that science is seeking an explanation for everything, and if we [philosophically] speculate that there is 'an-explanation-for-everything', but simply that we've not got there yet, that this 'explanation-for-everything' would actually be 'a dogma' not subject to change.

Philosophically, then, science will become 'static dogma' once we reach 'an-explanation-for-everything'. By logical self-exclusion, science will therefore never be able to reach 'an-explanation-for-everything' because if it were to do so then it would no longer be science!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think you've just stumbled into a philosophical matter there.

Could it not be argued that scientific dogma claims that the physics of today will apply tomorrow, and that this is an assertion that is not fully proven merely by showing that today's physics is the same as yesterdays?

Science is philosophy and uniformitarianism is part pragmatic, part verified but not unquestionable. Firstly it is part pragmatic because without counter evidence it is useful to consider the principle of uniformity e.g. if I've tested a drug on ten thousand people under expensive phase I, II, III clinical trials it would be ludicrous not to use it on the first patient because they weren't part of the trials, likewise if I have boiled a kettle in the morning to get hot water it is ludicrous for me to not to assume that it will work in the evening (essentially if you were to through out uniformitarianism you would have to go through life repeatedly testing everything*). Secondly uniformity is verified by repeatedly tested models. Sure whilst it may work one thousand times and not on the one thousand and first but the statistically significant series of confirmations.

Regarding its questionability nothing is unquestionable in science but unless you can provide a good reason as to why not adopting uniformitarianism would be better than adopting uniformitarianism then your argument fails.

*Literally everything:

• You wouldn't press the same keys on the keyboard in case they didn't work
• You wouldn't try to use your mouth to speak in case that was no longer its job
• You wouldn't breathe just in case oxygen was now poisonous
• You wouldn't leave by your front door incase it didn't lead to the same place
• You wouldn't travel in case gravity changed and squashed you to the ground
• You wouldn't light a match in case the physics regarding combustion had changed and you fear it might release a nuclear explosion

In other words for anyone to live a functioning, rational life they must adopt uniformitarianism.

The assumption that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning is just that, an assumption. It is in the nature of science that we consider it 'proven' that it will inevitably rise, because we believe we understand all the basic features of what the Sun is and celestial mechanics and all the other things that make us oh-so-clever.

Au contraire, it is the nature of science that we use observations to build predictive, explanatory models that we test over and over again. If something were to happen that ruined that model (e.g. the various models that describe the movements of the planets, the luminosity of the sun etc) we would change and using the new observations try to build a new model. If that model ended up throwing out most of uniformitarianism by showing that the laws of physics can change at any time at any point then so be it.

 

[cmb]

Au contraire, it is the nature of science that we use observations to build predictive, explanatory models that we test over and over again. If something were to happen that ruined that model (e.g. the various models that describe the movements of the planets, the luminosity of the sun etc) we would change and using the new observations try to build a new model. If that model ended up throwing out most of uniformitarianism by showing that the laws of physics can change at any time at any point then so be it.

You might note that I also contradicted the para you pulled out (it was a 'straw man' for me to criticize for myself!), so I guess we are in full agreement here!

I'd be interested in your response to the final 'lemma' that I proposed, the last para? Do you think that is [philosophically] correct? As we approach 'full consensus' and science beings to predict 'everything', would science be 'completed' and would it self-extinguish its own raison-d'etre? The corollary is that we need disagreement for science to live?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Do you think that is [philosophically] correct? As we approach 'full consensus' and science beings to predict 'everything', would science be 'completed' and would it self-extinguish its own raison-d'etre? The corollary is that we need disagreement for science to live?

I doubt science will ever be finished. Even if we discovered some theory of everything (that irrefutably proved that it was the TOE) there is still the near infinite variables of how the world can manifest. So what if you can in theory explain every atomic/quantum interaction in this new species of bacteria? We still don't know anything about it until we've actually studied it.

Also you could simplistically divide science into discovery and application e.g. "what role does this protein fill in metastatic cancer cells?" and "can we suppress this protein's expression in cancer cells to reduce metastasis?" So even if a specific field (or even the whole of science) approached the point of understanding everything there are near-infinite variables for application.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess you might argue that science is seeking an explanation for everything, and if we [philosophically] speculate that there is 'an-explanation-for-everything', but simply that we've not got there yet, that this 'explanation-for-everything' would actually be 'a dogma' not subject to change.

Philosophically, then, science will become 'static dogma' once we reach 'an-explanation-for-everything'. By logical self-exclusion, science will therefore never be able to reach 'an-explanation-for-everything' because if it were to do so then it would no longer be science!

No. Your conclusion is flawed.

Say we actually some day find an-explanation-for-everything. It remains so as long as there's no new contradictory evidence. As long as it continues to explain all observations, it is not dogmatic to espouse it.

It is only if new, contradictory evidence appears - and there would have to be a preponderance of it - that sticking to our explanation-for-everything could be construed as dogma.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Say we actually some day find an-explanation-for-everything. It remains so as long as there's no new contradictory evidence.

On top of this even if we had a self-affirming, absolute theory of everything that would not make it dogma. Dogma is unquestionable in that questions are not allowed, even if the scientific community had a perfect TOE people would still be allowed to question but inevitably their questioning would fail. That is the difference between dogma and having a correct answer.

 

[cmb]

No. Your conclusion is flawed.

Say we actually some day find an-explanation-for-everything. It remains so as long as there's no new contradictory evidence.

Then, we hadn't found 'an-explanation-for-everything'. I'm talking about a God-like 'explanation-for-everything' to which nothing new would ever be found. My 'conclusion' is 'perfect' [I defined it!] it is a mental conception, but the interpretation is debatable! What I was interested in using the concept for was to judge if it told us anything about whether science will always need disagreement within it for it to be a living activity - that is to say, if everyone is in agreement, is it still science (because there is nothing that is being debated, hypothesised and then tested)?

 

[DaveC426913]

Then, we hadn't found 'an-explanation-for-everything'.

It is impossible to prove that nothing new will come along. An explanation for everything must needs cover only all evidence we have acquired to-date.

I'm talking about a God-like 'explanation-for-everything'

Ah. Then what you get is pink unicorns and faeries.

 

[Evo]

This discussion has become pointless.