Forum Rules

  • Thread starter LitleBang
  • Start date
  • #26
106
1
Since you generally won't achieve a PhD without "using your knowledge", having a PhD usually means you are good at that.
Again true, but whats your point , in relation to the ability to think creatively and originally ?
I think it;s crystal clear for anyone that a Phd is highly advanced academical degree, and possessing one is a testimony to your ability to use "knowledge".

Crick didn't had this formal recognition known as a "phD". Some of more established researchers as Chargraff (my fav example) where dead bent on belittleing the Watson / Crick couple. Probably endless rows of "history teachers" did the same in their minds. Look, no PhDs. look, those guys cant even remember some of the elementary chemical structures.

But in the end, those 2 guys , using their knowledge and what probably was a uncanny amount of sheer determination, got the answer to the problem. Got a Nobel for it. While
Chargaff got a what was probably the biggest disappointment in his life. While he was a great researcher in his own right, with serious contributions to nucleic acid problems, he should have focused more on his own research than asserting what other ppl can do or not. Maybe then he would have got the structure first.


Having a PhD wont magically enable you to develop a new original theory or magically create a technological breakthrough. It is knowledge and work , a lot of hard work. It takes "heart". And unfortunately, no university or PhD can give you "heart".
 
  • #27
106
1
Couple of years ago I had the incredible luck to be part of the same online community as prof. Tom Fahey , one of the coauthors of the text (with profs Brooks and Baldwin) "Exercise physiology: Human bio-energetics and its applications", a work which is IMO today the standard in exercise physiology books.

When we praised his work, he responded with 2 things: 2 affirmations and an anecdote. He said to the community (my paraphrase):

1. "Thank you for your nice words. However, don't take our word for anything. Demand
evidence!" Judging about his interaction with the group, which contained a lot of coaches,
exercise physiology scientists and athletes themselves I am inclined to believe he really had this attitude and those where not just "nice words". We did question official lines of thinking very often. We tried to reconcile observations from the field (i.e athlete performance with
phsyiology). In the end the discussion where very productive for all IMO.

2. The anecdote was about one of his professors , prof Franklin Henry , one of the fathers of motor control specificity theories . Prof. Henry once said that if someone says "Good morning," you should say, "Where's your data?"

Perhaps one of the posters in this thread got it right when he said there is a difference between "questions" and "questioning". But sometimes the border is blurred.

But IMO is a gross mistake from the part of a teacher to state at the begging of a course that you "not question the current thinking on health care". In rare cases it can even mean that said professor was not prepared himself to discuss and provide meaningful answers to some questions. Its even more wrong for a history teacher to write theorems about who can or not think creatively.
 
  • #28
64
0
The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.
 
  • #29
106
1
The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.
Yes, but chances are that most of theories you can develop without a solid base (which may take years to develop) are crackpot indeed. Be prepared to be wrong , and make a lot of mistakes. Best is to absorb everything with an open mind. Ask questions today, question tomorrow, but dont let other ppl tell you what your mind can or can not do with or without a PhD. Be also "social" savvy, most of the ppl dont like to be asked for explanations. Use utmost diplomacy, and make friends in high places :P
 
  • #30
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.
You never had any case to begin with, so yes, it is best if you put it to rest. :smile:
 
  • #31
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,066
8
1. "Thank you for your nice words. However, don't take our word for anything. Demand
evidence!" Judging about his interaction with the group, which contained a lot of coaches,
exercise physiology scientists and athletes themselves I am inclined to believe he really had this attitude and those where not just "nice words". We did question official lines of thinking very often. We tried to reconcile observations from the field (i.e athlete performance with
phsyiology). In the end the discussion where very productive for all IMO.

2. The anecdote was about one of his professors , prof Franklin Henry , one of the fathers of motor control specificity theories . Prof. Henry once said that if someone says "Good morning," you should say, "Where's your data?"
All of your arguments are arguing the notion of having/requiring an advanced degree and that is not the point. Even in your examples, the people who are supposed to be questioning things are people with experience and prior knowledge in the area. They are in no way inexperienced or just off the street with an idea in their head.

Your second note about wanting to see the data is perfect. If someone with no knowledge in an area starts to question things, but has good data to back up their questions then I see no problems with the questioning. Will that ever happen with someone who has no knowledge in a certain area? I highly doubt it. But if they can back themselves up with data, then listen to them.
 
  • #32
106
1
Your second note about wanting to see the data is perfect. If someone with no knowledge in an area starts to question things, but has good data to back up their questions then I see no problems with the questioning. Will that ever happen with someone who has no knowledge in a certain area? I highly doubt it. But if they can back themselves up with data, then listen to them.
You nailed it. Best post in thread
 
  • #33
64
0
The point, science can't explain the mechanism of gravity except the all inclusive warping of space time. If someone has a logical explanation of the mechanism of gravity they are not allowed to post it here. Doesn't that mean only the established experts can post new ideas? That guarantees that no arm scientist stumbles across something new.
 
  • #34
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,928
2,421
... they are not allowed to post it here...
LitleBang did seem to be implying that his whole point was about posting new ideas here.

LitleBang: there are plenty of channels for getting new theories published. This forum just isn't one of them (though there is a subforum for discussing peer-reviewed theories.)

A forum cannot be all things to all people. This forum is about discussing the currently understood standard model.

You wouldn't go on a Spice Girls forum and complain that they won't let you talk about Shania Twain, would you?
 
  • #35
russ_watters
Mentor
19,851
6,274
Didn't F. Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953 with Watson, while he didnt had yet defended his PhD thesis ? I believe he did so only in 1954. Besides, they beat L. Pauling to it, which says a lot.

[later post] condition == "until you get a PhD"
You misread: I said got to his phd thesis. Crick was a phd student, so he fits the criteria. It should also be noted that he's a pretty special case as his first phd research was interrupted by WWII (quite literally by a bomb!) and he was 35 at the time of the discovery of DNA.

He most certainly was a professional scientist when he made the discovery.
 
  • #36
russ_watters
Mentor
19,851
6,274
The point, science can't explain the mechanism of gravity except the all inclusive warping of space time. If someone has a logical explanation of the mechanism of gravity they are not allowed to post it here. Doesn't that mean only the established experts can post new ideas? That guarantees that no arm scientist stumbles across something new.
No, it guarantees no armchair scientist first announces their discovery here. This isn't the place for that anyway*! If someone truly has discovered something noteworthy, they need simply to write a scholarly paper on it and submit it to journals for publication. That's how new science is done. It isn't done on internet forums.

*If you see that as a drawback of physicsforums, so be it. We don't and we have a very good reason for that: we've tried it the other way and it didn't work!
 
  • #37
106
1
The point, science can't explain the mechanism of gravity except the all inclusive warping of space time. If someone has a logical explanation of the mechanism of gravity they are not allowed to post it here. Doesn't that mean only the established experts can post new ideas? That guarantees that no arm scientist stumbles across something new.
The point is, I really dont think you can have even a theory, not to mention a explanation to that until you are way past graduate physics.

You can of course post anything , any theory, the internet is the new media, all the rage in self publishing, but be prepared to face the consequences. And since humans ain't so nice to their fellows this may include some laughs youll never see the end of it.

If you believe you got all the data , your equations are consistent , your new theory fits with observations , then by all means please write a paper.
 
  • #38
106
1
You misread: I said got to his phd thesis.
I didnt misread, but it seems my command of English language is very poor. "On the fly" translation in my head was wrong. I associated it with successful defense of a thesis.

What can I say, one pays for lack of attention to detail. Thanks for pointing it to me.
 
  • #39
russ_watters
Mentor
19,851
6,274
Well if English isn't your first language, you fooled me - so don't worry about it. It's a small error.
 
  • #40
Redbelly98
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,116
152
Thread locked.

If somebody has questions or objections about the rules at PF, the proper forum to post in is "Forum Feedback & Announcements". It wasn't stated clearly in Post #1 if this is an objection to PF policy, or just what the objection is.

There are venues for developing new theories, PF is not one of them because we do not have the resources to do it properly. It is a place to learn and discuss the current understanding of science, math, and technology.

Final note, the objection about not allowing personal theories at PF is not a new one, but we do have reasons for it and I think most of the membership realizes and appreciates the benefit of that rule.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Forum Rules

Replies
1
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
882
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
2K
Top