Debunking alternative physics theories

  • Thread starter elcaro
  • Start date
In summary: Well, first - in order to understand the correct theory, it is also good to understand why alternative theories are not correct. To know why the correct theory is correct also includes knowing why alternative theories/explenations are incorrect.Yes, that is correct. Alternative theories are not considered correct solely because they are alternative, but because they are not based in reality.And "true theory" is in fact not a good description of scientific theories. No scientific theory is every going to be accepted as true, no matter how well it is supported by evidence.That is correct. Scientific theories can be supported by evidence, but they are not "true" in the sense that they are never going to be overturned.
  • #1
elcaro
128
28
There are many alternative physics theories out there. I don't mean alternative theories which are part of mainstream science, because they can be discussed in regular forum threads, but those outside of it, mostly work of amateur physicists.

Would it be an idea to have a forum thread dedicated to debunking such theories and show why that particular theory is in error? I think it would serve educational purposes. Some of such theories are quite sophiscated, and for less educated members it might not be clear where those theories are in error.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
caz said:
That post explains why alternative physics theories are not discussed on PF, only physics theories that have peer reviewed papers.
But my intention was not about discussing those theories, but showing where such theories are in error for educational purposes.
I don't think that is the same thing.
 
  • #4
It's called "Feeding the Trolls;" it's been tried and failed many, many, many times.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara, russ_watters, Wrichik Basu and 5 others
  • #5
Bystander said:
It's called "Feeding the Trolls;" it's been tried and failed many, many, many times.
Ok.

Debunking alternative physics explenation must however be viewed as part of the regular process of scientific development. As an example, in the time before Einstein came along, there were alternative theories for the cause of gravity, like for instance Le Sage theory of gravity based on a model of "pushing gravity", which was rigorously debunked as part of the regular scientific development, so I would think it should have a place on a forum dedicated to scientific physics development. However, if such is already tried and has lead to unmaintanable/moderatable discussion threads, then this is just a pitty.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #6
elcaro said:
Ok.

Debunking alternative physics explenation must however be viewed as part of the regular process of scientific development.
Sure, just not here.

elcaro said:
if such is already tried and has lead to unmaintanable/moderatable discussion threads, then this is just a pitty.
It has and it did and no, it isn't really. It's a waste of time to do it in an open forum like PF because as @Bystander said, it just ends up feeding the trolls. The discussion would go on forever and be a total waste of time.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
elcaro said:
Debunking alternative physics explenation must however be viewed as part of the regular process of scientific development. As an example, in the time before Einstein came along, there were alternative theories for the cause of gravity….
And after as well - for example, Google for “MOND general relativity “. Discussion of such ideas in the peer-reviewed literature is indeed part of the regular process of scientific development and an appropriate topic for this forum.

But that’s not what you were asking about when you started this thread. You were asking about the unpublished work of “amateur physicists”, and their work develops the science of physics about as much as palmistry develops the science of anatomy.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes Astronuc, dextercioby, bhobba and 6 others
  • #8
Suppose there are 10 theories, 1 true and 9 false. Which would be more work, explaining the truthful one, or debunking the false ones? Why is it not most educational to spend all our efforts talking about the 1 true? Why would it be more educational to divert some of the resources to debunking the 9? What you're asking for doesn't make sense.

True/False 10/1 are just metaphors I used to make a point. That's not the language real scientists use.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, BillTre and Vanadium 50
  • #9
elcaro said:
There are many alternative physics theories out there.
If it's a real physics theory (what means the author already did his/her homework, managed to prove it and squeeze it into scientific acceptance) then it would be OK, I guess.
But the description is more about doing that homework instead of the lazy/unwilling author. Now, that never ends well.
 
  • #10
Refuting crackpottery is like trying to bail out the ocean with a thimble. There are other forums where you can try it and see for yourself what happens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Astronuc, russ_watters, anorlunda and 2 others
  • #11
anorlunda said:
Suppose there are 10 theories, 1 true and 9 false. Which would be more work, explaining the truthful one, or debunking the false ones? Why is it not most educational to spend all our efforts talking about the 1 true? Why would it be more educational to divert some of the resources to debunking the 9? What you're asking for doesn't make sense.

True/False 10/1 are just metaphors I used to make a point. That's not the language real scientists use.

Well, first - in order to understand the correct theory, it is also good to understand why alternative theories are not correct. To know why the correct theory is correct also includes knowing why alternative theories/explenations are incorrect.

And "true theory" is in fact not a good description of scientific theories. No scientific theory is every going to be "true', only provisionally true, as in not proven false.
 
  • #12
phinds said:
Sure, just not here.It has and it did and no, it isn't really. It's a waste of time to do it in an open forum like PF because as @Bystander said, it just ends up feeding the trolls. The discussion would go on forever and be a total waste of time.
I understand that. I am not asking anyone to waste time on anything that isn't fruitfull, but an occasional contribution of an expert author, showing why some of those alternative theories have fallacies, without opening up a discussion about it, might be usefull. The problem may be however that there are too many such alternative theories out there, there is no way you can cover all of them. As said, it has been tried, was not succesfull, then end of the discussion I think. Thanks for the replies.
 
  • #13
elcaro said:
Well, first - in order to understand the correct theory, it is also good to understand why alternative theories are not correct. To know why the correct theory is correct also includes knowing why alternative theories/explenations are incorrect.
I agree with that, but in the context of teaching, not research. It is common/useful to cite common misconceptions about physical phenomena or the theories that describe them when teaching because that addresses them head-on vs allowing them to sit in the background of someone's mind as potentially still valid. But it also means the framing of the discussion needs to be teacher-student, not researcher-researcher.

But in the context of research that is not useful. People doing research are supposed to know the full body of knowledge already, and it is a waste of other researchers' time to re-explain 100 year old misconceptions over and over and over again to people who think they are doing forward-looking research but really aren't.

This may come off as harsh, but it is just reality: the ideas of amateurs are almost never worthy of attention of professional researchers.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #14
russ_watters said:
I agree with that, but in the context of teaching, not research. It is common/useful to cite common misconceptions about physical phenomena or the theories that describe them when teaching because that addresses them head-on vs allowing them to sit in the background of someone's mind as potentially still valid.

But in the context of research that is not useful. People doing research are supposed to know the full body of knowledge already, and it is a waste of other researchers' time to re-explain 100 year old misconceptions over and over and over again to people who think they are doing forward-looking research but really aren't.
My primary goal was indeed the context of teaching and as part of the learning process.
 
  • #15
elcaro said:
My primary goal was indeed the context of teaching and as part of the learning process.
Well in that case we more or less agree. We have had threads in the past discussing popular misconceptions and they are often highlighted in our insights articles.

The term "alternative theories" triggers PTSD here...
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Likes Evo, Astronuc and Bystander
  • #16
elcaro said:
And "true theory" is in fact not a good description of scientific theories. No scientific theory is every going to be "true', only provisionally true, as in not proven false.
If you had read the entire post, you would have seen that I said that.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #17
We used to have a sub-forum dedicated just to unpublished theories, and one to debunk and they both turned into absolute nightmares, with one member doing an hour long rant on You Tube about how unfair we were in closing it after he had literally used the sub-forum for his own personal theory blog for months, maybe a year, it was a LONG time.

When you start posting personal theories, things that are wrong, it's like internet fly paper.
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu, Rive, Bystander and 3 others
  • #18
elcaro said:
but an occasional contribution of an expert author, showing why some of those alternative theories have fallacies, without opening up a discussion about it, might be usefull.
You are very quick to be deciding how other people spend their time.

I think @Hornbein has the right idea. Feel free to do this yourself on a forum that permits this, and see how it goes. Every time it's been tried here it has done nothing but made a great big mess.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo and phinds
  • #19
elcaro said:
I understand that. I am not asking anyone to waste time on anything that isn't fruitfull,
Yes, you most emphatically are
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #20
Moderators, could somebody please close this thread. We've HAD this discussion before, why keep rehashing it? @Evo, @Nugatory, @russ_watters
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu, BillTre, Evo and 1 other person
  • #21
Wish granted.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes Wrichik Basu, Bystander, BillTre and 2 others

1. What are alternative physics theories?

Alternative physics theories are theories that propose different explanations for physical phenomena compared to the currently accepted theories in mainstream physics. These theories often challenge established principles and laws of physics.

2. Why is it important to debunk alternative physics theories?

Debunking alternative physics theories is important because it helps to ensure that scientific knowledge and understanding of the physical world is accurate and reliable. It also prevents the spread of misinformation and pseudoscience.

3. How are alternative physics theories debunked?

Alternative physics theories are debunked through rigorous scientific testing and experimentation. Scientists use the scientific method to gather evidence and evaluate the validity of these theories. If the evidence does not support the alternative theory, it is considered debunked.

4. Can alternative physics theories ever be proven to be true?

Yes, alternative physics theories can potentially be proven to be true if they are supported by strong and consistent evidence. However, they must also be able to explain and predict physical phenomena in a more accurate and comprehensive way than the current theories.

5. How do alternative physics theories impact the scientific community?

Alternative physics theories can spark debate and discussion within the scientific community, which can lead to new insights and discoveries. However, they can also cause confusion and hinder progress if they are not supported by evidence and are based on faulty reasoning.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
280
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
47
Views
3K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
208
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
231
Back
Top