- #36
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
Finally, one of my babies has grown into an adult thread :)
This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example. If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.SpaceTiger said:How does one review long-held beliefs without first understanding them? A "dreamer" is not necessarily lazy or uneducated in mainstream science. If one wishes to challenge the establishment, they should first learn how it works. That means, basically, learning things "by the book" until you have a deep enough understanding to challenge it. Trying to do so before you have this understanding is simply a waste of everyone's time...That depends on what you mean by "outside of conventional cosmology". If you mean they haven't learned anything about conventional cosmology, then they almost certainly don't have a clue. If they've learned it (and understand it) but have alternate theories about the universe, then that would seem to be exactly the kind of dreamer both myself and Einstein are supporting...In my experience, the majority of "alternate theories" come from people who don't understand the conventional ones. If someone demonstrates that they do indeed have a thorough understanding of mainstream theory, then I will lend an ear. The nice thing about going through the traditional academic route is that one doesn't have to do much convincing. By getting a degree and a good job, they've already validated themselves...I just don't like the idea of treating scientific theories as a matter of preference. If one gets the idea to challenge the establishment before they learn about it, then I would wonder about the basis of their objection. If the basis for it was a matter of preference, philosophical prejudice, or personal vendetta, then from the scientific point of view, they really would be guessing.
Aether said:This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example. If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.
Yes, and the folks at Argonne National Lab (ANL) just happen to be the ones who generated the "standard code" for primordial nucleosythesis; way to go ANL!ZapperZ said:Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory.
I'm not defending anyone who is armed only with pop-science books on cosmology.ZapperZ said:No one would walk up to either of them and say "Hey look, you only read pop-science books on cosmology. Why don't you do your homework first before sticking your noses into this?"...That, to me, is the major difference between professionals in this field making incursions into another area, versus that done by amateurs.
Do what "things" out of ignorance? Think? Motivated exploration?ZapperZ said:We respect the field and each other areas way to much to do things out of ignorance...
http://www.free-card-tricks.net/blainelev1.htmlGale said:how do you levitate?
Not true. The ability to read the books and spout the contents of such on demand does not demonstrate an understanding of the material. Such a student may be "educated" by your standards, but memorization and obedient acceptance is rather antithetical to the goals of science.SpaceTiger said:Not learning what the books have to say would seem to be the definition of "uneducated".
Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.). If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems. When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.Space Tiger said:That depends on what you mean by "outside of conventional cosmology". If you mean they haven't learned anything about conventional cosmology, then they almost certainly don't have a clue.
Ah, yes - pay your dues, learn the secret handshake, cross Pons Asinorum, and then you are qualified to have an original thought. :yuck: Have you reviewed the history of the sciences? If you have, you know that breakthroughs have come from all quarters, and from people with a wide variety of backgrounds. It is probably convenient to dismiss out-of-hand any ideas that come from someone out of the mainstream, but you might miss some good opportunities to learn something that way. Even proving an idea wrong can give you a better understanding of what is likely to be right.Space Tiger said:In my experience, the majority of "alternate theories" come from people who don't understand the conventional ones. If someone demonstrates that they do indeed have a thorough understanding of mainstream theory, then I will lend an ear. The nice thing about going through the traditional academic route is that one doesn't have to do much convincing. By getting a degree and a good job, they've already validated themselves.
Ahh, the cockroach approach. Lay a billion eggs and hopefully one of them will actually survivePengwuino said:Finally, one of my babies has grown into an adult thread :)
Aether said:Yes, and the folks at Argonne National Lab (ANL) just happen to be the ones who generated the "standard code" for primordial nucleosythesis; way to go ANL!
I'm not defending anyone who is armed only with pop-science books on cosmology.
Do what "things" out of ignorance? Think? Motivated exploration?
SpaceTiger said someone needs to learn the material. That's quite different from rote memorization and regurgitation of material. He has also stated already that understanding is NOT the same thing as acceptance. As others have pointed out, if you do not know what the current theory really says, and understand it fully, how do you know where the problems are in it to challenge it?turbo-1 said:Not true. The ability to read the books and spout the contents of such on demand does not demonstrate an understanding of the material. Such a student may be "educated" by your standards, but memorization and obedient acceptance is rather antithetical to the goals of science.
Well, I know nothing of cosmology, but if what you say is true, then understanding those assumptions is what gives you the power to question them. If you don't understand them, how do you know to go back and re-examine them?Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.). If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems. When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.
Why are you so bitter here? SpaceTiger didn't say anything to indicate formal education was the ONLY way to reach that goal, just that it makes it easier to gain acceptance because you've already gone through a documented process to show you really have learned what you needed to learn. If you haven't taken that route, then you're going to need to put more effort into proving yourself. It doesn't mean you can't learn a theory well enough to challenge it, it just means you're probably going to take a lot more time to do it and will have to spend more time convincing others you have the necessary background to propose what you do.Ah, yes - pay your dues, learn the secret handshake, cross Pons Asinorum, and then you are qualified to have an original thought. :yuck: Have you reviewed the history of the sciences? If you have, you know that breakthroughs have come from all quarters, and from people with a wide variety of backgrounds. It is probably convenient to dismiss out-of-hand any ideas that come from someone out of the mainstream, but you might miss some good opportunities to learn something that way. Even proving an idea wrong can give you a better understanding of what is likely to be right.
It is only relevant because I gave an example of "cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator", and "they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis", and then you (an employee of ANL) said "Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory". That was simply meant as a pat on the back to the good folks at ANL, but I'll have to take it back anyway (sorry)...I just checked and it was Fermilab not ANL.ZapperZ said:I don't see what is the relevance of this thing to the thread.
Cosmology probably intersects every other discipline at some point, and it's OK if someone having skills in a different area approaches cosmology from such an intersection.ZapperZ said:No, but your question on some particle physicist doing cosmology and starting out not having "... much knowledge on conventional cosmology..." seems to make comparison with everyone else who also do not have such knowledge - that, after all, is the original premise of the OP, no?
"Those two camps" being: 1) those skilled in something/anything which intersects cosmology, and 2) those skilled in nothing (yet)?ZapperZ said:I make a distinction between those two camps and say that there IS a difference in approach and respect, even if that particle physicsts didn't start off being a cosmologist. And we're ignoring the fact here that many aspect of physics are interrelated and have explicit connection.
Do you mean trying to publish something in another field of study? If/when your work/skills intersect another field of study, then surely you're entitled to pursue that wherever it might lead.ZapperZ said:No, doing work in another field of study.
In Pop Sci books you learn ABOUT physics. This is not the same as learning Physics, which must be done in a real physics text.
Aether said:It is only relevant because I gave an example of "cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator", and "they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis", and then you (an employee of ANL) said "Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory". That was simply meant as a pat on the back to the good folks at ANL, but I'll have to take it back anyway (sorry)...I just checked and it was Fermilab not ANL.
Cosmology probably intersects every other discipline at some point, and it's OK if someone having skills in a different area approaches cosmology from such an intersection.
"Those two camps" being: 1) those skilled in something/anything which intersects cosmology, and 2) those skilled in nothing (yet)?
Do you mean trying to publish something in another field of study? If/when your work/skills intersect another field of study, then surely you're entitled to pursue that wherever it might lead.
Yes, but even before you would ever get to steps (i-iv) there would have to be some incubation period within your own mind during which you would try to gather together every conceivably relevant notion (to be sorted through in due time). Nevertheless, I'm only talking about science, not pop-science.ZapperZ said:However, if I am trying to contribute something that I think is "new", then I must first go look at the literature on the subject matter and verify that (i) no one has done it already (ii) it is something silly (iii) it isn't something "important" (remember, just because something is interesting, doesn't mean it is important) and (iv) it hasn't been falsified.
In other words, *I* have to do my own homework! I will have to scour through the literature, talk to people who are expert in the field, etc... etc. I don't just read pop-science books, or even intro textbooks to accomplish this!
OK, but you seem to be only talking about the "back-end" of the scientific process where someone steps up to a microphone to tell everyone like it is. I'm thinking of the entire process from start to finish.ZapperZ said:I know what it takes for someone from a different background to make a meaningful contribution in another field. This isn't a theory for me. It is real life. And I will state without hesitation that if someone wish to not look silly, it is imperative to put in the effort to understand the subject matter first before trying to sell something.
True, and books by Paul Davies, James Gleick, and other talented authors may inspire people to dig much deeper once they appreciate the sense of wonder that the authors have regarding their subjects.tribdog said:Popular science books are not ruining anything. They give enjoyment to everyday people and they let people get a better understanding of the world around them. So what if they don't have the math, Joe Blow isn't going to be working on a unification theory in his spare time anyway. Most pop sci books are at least giving a true version of theory even if they don't give the entire story. My grade school science classes didn't stimulate me into learning more nearly as much as Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps.
Aether said:Yes, but even before you would ever get to steps (i-iv) there would have to be some incubation period within your own mind during which you would try to gather together every conceivably relevant notion (to be sorted through in due time). Nevertheless, I'm only talking about science, not pop-science.
OK, but you seem to be only talking about the "back-end" of the scientific process where someone steps up to a microphone to tell everyone like it is. I'm thinking of the entire process from start to finish.
turbo-1 said:Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.).
If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems.
When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.
I don't think so.ZapperZ said:Did you just make a switch?
Here is the initial "incubation" period:ZapperZ said:You never stated this before. All you did was to make an assertion about someone in another physics of physics intruding into cosmology (see the first post that I responded to you). So where is the initial "incubation" here? That person is similar to me.
Aether said:"...a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example..."
I didn't say that steps i-iv aren't important, only that an incubation period typically comes first.ZapperZ said:You can falsify this by showing me another physicist who made another contribution in another field of physics without going through point i-iv.
Aether said:I don't think so.
Here is the initial "incubation" period:
"...a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example..."
I didn't say that steps i-iv aren't important, only that an incubation period typically comes first.
Aether said:This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example.
If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.
If someone who is "working" at a particle collider learns something new about particle collisions, then that person may wonder how this extrapolates to cosmology; assuming that this person is not completely ignorant of the world around them. Then that person may take this as motivation to study cosmology to resolve a specific question in their own mind. They have no need (starting out) to know everything that is already established, and may in fact benefit greatly from their initial ignorance of such knowledge.ZapperZ said:My point, which you have missed, is that for that "someone" who is working at a particle collider to make a "new cosmological theory" would have to know what is already established. If not, how else does one know it is new?
Take Penzias & Wilson for example, they discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) having not a clue (at first) what it was that they were looking at.ZapperZ said:It has always been my assertion that if one is ignorant of the state of a field of study, one will never know what is "new" even if it comes up and bites one's rear end.
Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!ZapperZ said:Particle physicists are keenly aware of cosmology. The MINOS project is one such example. This clearly proves my point that anything "new" has to be accompanied by knowledge. You'll never know that what you do or discover can be meaningful to cosmology if you have no clue what cosmology is.
Aether said:If someone who is "working" at a particle collider learns something new about particle collisions, then that person may wonder how this extrapolates to cosmology; assuming that this person is not completely ignorant of the world around them. Then that person may take this as motivation to study cosmology to resolve a specific question in their own mind. They have no need (starting out) to know everything that is already established, and may in fact benefit greatly from their initial ignorance of such knowledge.
Take Penzias & Wilson for example, they discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) having not a clue (at first) what it was that they were looking at.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html
Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!
At some point they need to come to an understanding of this, but this doesn't necessaily have to be a starting point. Penzias & Wilson had data, and then figured out what to make of it.SpaceTiger said:People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge.
I agree.SpaceTiger said:Measuring the cross section of a particle (for example) is not itself a direct challenge of standard cosmology until it is put within a proper context. If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.
Those "things which are being changed" need to be understood eventually, but all along the way? When will you be prepared to say "Now I am ready, and understand everything that I need to know"?SpaceTiger said:All along the way, it is important that those things which are being changed are understood by the person changing them. If they fail to do so, it's likely they will, at best, make a lot of errors. At worst, their theory could be completely wrong.
The point is that they came upon an important clue without having any uncommon advance knowledge of cosmology. If anyone else comes upon such a clue in the couse of their work, then why shouldn't they pursue it if they so desire?ZapperZ said:But YOU are the one extrapolating, not them! They discovered CMB! Period. They did not go on to use them at that time to extrapolate the whole of the origin of our cosmology. Do you see the difference?
It is their choice how to pursue it. If they want to report it, that's fine. If they want to study it and try to make a theory out of it then that is fine too.ZapperZ said:It took many years before the significance of the CMB, even after repeated measurement, is understood. Someone who discover something should report it as that, and NOT make this as some cosmological theory.
There is no excuse for that.ZapperZ said:Besides, look at all the argument on here being done by so many other people who are refusing to study the field they want to stick their noses in.
I am an experimentalist.ZapperZ said:How many of you are experimentalists? How many? I can't hear you!
What is wrong with that?ZapperZ said:This means that a lot of you are theorists, or think you are theorists.
Tell that to Penzias & Wilson! If you mean to limit this to "pure theorists" who are not guided by some more-or-less tangible motivation, then I agree.ZapperZ said:Now tell me how you are going to discover a "new anything" in cosmology without understanding cosmology.
A pure theorist, or wannabe theorist, probably does need to formally study a subject from the ground up. An experimentalist, or specialist in any field, may be motivated from something that they have learned to explore applications of their knowledge within any other field.ZapperZ said:I am an experimentalist. I can discover something new if I'm lucky, and that may be relevant in another field, even if I don't understand that field. A valid observation is a valid observation, no matter where. But show me where some theorist who discovered something new in another field without putting any effort in that field.
Aether said:The point is that they came upon an important clue without having any uncommon advance knowledge of cosmology. If anyone else comes upon such a clue in the couse of their work, then why shouldn't they pursue it if they so desire?
I am an experimentalist.
What is wrong with that?
Tell that to Penzias & Wilson!
A pure theorist, or wannabe theorist, probably does need to formally study a subject from the ground up. An experimentalist, or specialist in any field, may be motivated from something that they have learned to explore applications of their knowledge within any other field.
I didn't say that. if you had Penzias & Wilson's data in-hand before it was released, wouldn't you make an effort to search out the implications to the best of your ability prior to reporting the discovery?ZapperZ said:Oh great. Then you're saying everyone on the Nobel Prize list in Physics are cosmologist, because, y'know, all of those, even electron microscopes, have made discoveries that adds to our undertanding of cosmology. Oh hey, then I'm doing cosmology too! Fancy that!
Sometimes when one is holding a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.ZapperZ said:Experimentalists produces reproducible facts. Unless you are psychic, you have little idea of the significance of that fact in OTHER fields.
Perhaps.ZapperZ said:Do you think Penzias and Wilson were formulating the origin of the universe? No! They discovered a non-terrestrial signal! Done! It took cosmologists and astrophysicists to put that discovery into perspective - to give it a MEANINGFUL place.
Wasn't the monopole temperature immediately useful?ZapperZ said:We had to do several other mapping of the CMB to really gain enough data to actually gain useful knowledge of it.
Now that you are a moderator of "Independent Research", this might really happen one day.ZapperZ said:So now let me referee your paper and we'll see how much you appreciate my expertise in your field.
Aether said:I didn't say that. if you had Penzias & Wilson's data in-hand before it was released, wouldn't you make an effort to search out the implications to the best of your ability prior to reporting the discovery?
Now that you are a moderator of "Independent Research", this might really happen one day.
Such knowledge can be acquired, one doesn't necessarily need to have it all to begin with.ZapperZ said:A set of data or even knowledge without being adopted into a proper context is useless! To be able to adopt it into useful form, now THAT requires the knowledge of a particular field.
Why not?ZapperZ said:Exactly. So if I give you a negative review, don't ever use the argument that I know nothing about your field.
I haven't claimed to be a particle accelerator expert, so what are you implying?ZapperZ said:I, on the other hand, would never recommend you to review my papers.
Aether said:Such knowledge can be acquired, one doesn't necessarily need to have it all to begin with.
I haven't claimed to be a particle accelerator expert, so what are you implying?
OK.ZapperZ said:I implied nothing.
Not at all. I'm saying that it isn't unusual for a line of inquiry to lead into unknown territory, and that people can cope with that situation by learning a subset of another field (as opposed to dropping everything to go run out and get another PhD).ZapperZ said:You seem to think everyone that produced something that eventually gets used in a particular field, are people who should be considered to be experts in that field. Just because someone discovered the CMB somehow meant that they're doing astrophysics and cosmology and are already equipped to deal with that field. This is what I earlier said to be absurd. Just because I work with electron sources and how they behave in vacuum does not make me a cosmologist.
I disagree, but only because "he/she must acquire the knowledge of that field" is not properly limited so as to be a practical expectation. I would agree that "for someone to call him or herself to be a cosmologist and make MEANINGFUL contribution, he/she must acquire some knowledge of that field." How much "knowledge of that field" is sufficient depends on the circumstances. If a person isn't motivated by something tangible from another field that they already do know something about, and they are interested in making an incremental advance to the field, then yes this person probably needs to acquire a more thorough knowledge of the field.ZapperZ said:Bottom line: for someone to call him or herself to be a cosmologist and make MEANINGFUL contribution, he/she must acquire the knowledge of that field. If you disagree, say so and tell me why.
ZapperZ said:If not, this conversation is over because I refuse to continue going around in circles.
turbo-1 said:some examples...
Aether said:At some point they need to come to an understanding of this, but this doesn't necessaily have to be a starting point. Penzias & Wilson had data, and then figured out what to make of it.
OK, that is correct.SpaceTiger said:Penzias & Wilson were not responsible for the theoretical prediction or explanation of the microwave background, they just described the observations: As they say in the abstract, the theoretical explanation was provided by: Dicke, Peebles, Roll, & Wilson 1965
That depends on you, doesn't it?SpaceTiger said:If I dig up some rare dinosaur bones while weeding my garden, does that make me a "dreamer"?
I said: "This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator?"SpaceTiger said:Penzias & Wilson had no aspirations to change cosmology when they made their observations, so it would seem to be irrelevant to what turbo and I were talking about.
Penzias & Wilson are just an example of how someone can be led to a frontier of cosmology by questions arising within their own seemingly unrelated field. Had they not hooked-up with Dicke, Peebles, Roll, & Wilson, they might just as easily have gone to a research library and inquired into cosmology for themselves. A cursory literature search should have turned up Dicke, Beringer, Kyhl, and Vane, Phys. Rev., 70, 340, 1946. I don't have that paper, but (Dicke et al., 1965) seems to suggest that everything may have been laid out in there if Penzias & Wilson had simply bothered to look.Measuring the cross section of a particle (for example) is not itself a direct challenge of standard cosmology until it is put within a proper context. If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.
I pointed out above that this would be OT, and I have started a new thread.SpaceTiger said:This is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of cosmology. None of the things you listed are impossible in modern physics. If you would like an explanation, please feel free to start a thread in the A&C forum. I will be happy to elaborate, as I'm sure will be the other resident experts.