arul_k said:
Do you mean to say that there are only "experts" and "crackpots" and no one else in between. Thats a rather narrow view!
I agree with pretty much everything that's already been said about this comment, but I'll provide another point of view for your to consider.
People exist along a continuum, starting from essentially no knowledge of physics or science in general, and running all the way to undending everything about the specific field of science they're trained in. Formal education is by far the most effective way of moving along this continuum for most people, though I'm sure a few people manage to move pretty far along it purely through self-study.
A key thing to understand is that this continuum exists for
everything. Whether you're a hairdresser, engineer, car mechanic, or a farrier there was a point where you knew next to nothing about the field and had to learn it
prior to performing that job. In your training you move along the continuum from a complete newbie to (hopefully) an expert in that field. Many times this training takes place on-the-job, but it's training nonetheless.
Now, I'm sure you don't expect a random person who's had next to no experience or training at fixing cars to come up with some revolutionary new way of fixing cars, or someone who has little knowledge of mechanical engineering to design a complicated new bridge. The same thing happens in science. As you move along in your training, you become more and more experienced and more capable of contributing to science. Undergrad students can do basic experiments that were invented hundreds of years ago, so they aren't going to be contributing anything to developing a cutting edge theory based on those experiments. They've been done a million times and are very well understood. And that's really the key here. We already understand those experiments and the theory that describes them. As these students progress in their training and become Grad students and possibly get PHD's they gain experience and learn more about what we do and don't know and, importantly, why we know these things and where our understanding breaks down.
arul_k said:
What credentials did Galileo, Newton, Faraday ect have to begin with? No one is born with credentials. My point is you can't start off by being acknowledged by the scientific community and then put forward your ideas.
Of course you can. Basic acknowledgment comes from completing your schooling in a field and shows that you (hopefully) understand the field well enough to make meaningful contributions to it.
arul_k said:
I do agree that there is a remote possibility of someone coming up with something radically new, but its not impossible.
No one is arguing that it is impossible. The fact is the chances of someone without training coming up with a radical new theory is so utterly remote that it is completely pointless to even consider a theory from someone untrained in science. If I wanted to hear a fine sonnet, I'd find a poet, someone who'd studied poetry and had plenty of experience under their pen. I wouldn't go to every elementary school poetry contest in hopes that one of the youngsters had written a masterpiece.
