Insights Why Won't You Look at My New Theory? - Comments

[Borg]

How many times someone told me "evolution is just a theory" ..

As is their intelligence.

 

[Giovanniontheweb]

it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn't world enough and time to consider everybody's idea. That's why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.

In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren't knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for your idea that you aren't willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.

can you fly as an eagle in the skyes, I guess you can't unless sitting in 1st on a boeing. The eagle can feel what you cannot and it can use it. Being able to intuitevely understand differs from being able to use the lernt books to explain it, we can keep mixing it up if you like. I can be very good in repeating books yet it took me a while to feel the first page.

 

[votingmachine]

it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn't world enough and time to consider everybody's idea. That's why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.

In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren't knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for your idea that you aren't willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.

No one is actually limiting anyone from thinking creatively. But there is no requirement for anyone to pay attention. As the thread title asks: "Why won't you look at my new theory" ... the answer is because no one HAS to ... there needs to be a compelling argument or else it is likely a waste of time. The burden is on the individual to create a compelling argument, not on the audience to decipher a non-compelling argument.

 

[russ_watters]

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all.

Just science? Hey, I've never worked on a car before, but I have an idea of how to improve their performance. Mind if I try it out on your car?

Zz always uses the example of surgery.

Maybe perpetual motion machine "inventions" should insult me more as an engineer, but I would think scientists would be offended by the idea that "everyone deserves a fair hearing." Getting a PhD isn't just an excuse to spend 5 more years going to frat parties; it's how you earn the privilege of that "hearing".

I don't get it, really: most people are unusually good at at least one thing, aren't they? Wouldn't anyone be offended by the idea that a novice could be better at it than them? Doesn't everyone recognize that it is very unlikely to be possible?

 

[mfb]

How many times someone told me "evolution is just a theory" ..

My usual answer is something like "so is gravity. Do you expect us all to fall upwards tomorrow?"

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

My usual answer is something like "so is gravity. Do you expect us all to fall upwards tomorrow?"

The response usually given to me is that gravity is a law. Thus the confusion of what scientific theory and law are.

 

[mfb]

Never got that reply. Anyway, the "law" is a prediction of the theory.

 

[PeterDonis]

The eagle can feel what you cannot and it can use it.

In other words, the eagle can do something that has an objective criterion of success: it can stay up in the air, rather than crash into the ground, which is what would happen if you or I tried to fly by flapping our arms. And if the eagle could understand our language, I don't think he would be impressed by us insisting that we deserve a fair chance to fly even though we haven't done anything to figure out how.

The objective criterion of success in science is that your theory's predictions match experiments. Can you, without doing all the work of learning what we currently know, come up with a new theory that does that in some branch of science where we don't currently have a good theory? If you can, you will be the first person ever in human history to do it. Good luck.

 

[rjbeery]

I think there's a romantic element in rooting for the underdog; it certainly empowers anyone who identifies with being one. Similarly there is a feeling of superiority if you choose to advocate something that the majority does not, which I believe is the motivation behind conspiracy theories, for example.

 

[Charles Carter]

Peter's post, and Dale's response, are reasonable and on the money. A couple of other issues come to mind, though.
A hobbyist only, I've been curious about STR for a while. Though rusty with calculus and linear algebra, I dug a little deeper than the strictly lay descriptions and have found works I can understand. But some conceptual matters I still find difficult. Turns out I'm not the only one and I get the feeling mentors and others here are pretty tired of answering such questions, which is fine. But the pat formulaic and dismissive answers have led me to realize PF is not a place to gain the better understanding I seek.
Secondly for a variety of reasons I believe Science to be suffering real credibility issues around reproducibility. This seems to involve softer sciences most, where statistical significance is relied on heavily , but I've seen comments that such issues involve physics as well. Yet news, whether USA Today or Scientific American, are not terribly discerning.

 

[PeterDonis]

I get the feeling mentors and others here are pretty tired of answering such questions,

More specifically, we can get tired of answering questions that have already been answered, either in FAQs here on PF or on other sites that we've linked to already numerous times. We do this in our free time, so we can't provide the same level of pedagogy that a school or a textbook does.

for a variety of reasons I believe Science to be suffering real credibility issues around reproducibility.

I would say the fundamental issue here is not reproducibility per se, but calling something "science" when it hasn't been reproduced (or more generally, when it hasn't been given the quality control checks that should be done before anything gets to be called "science").

Yet news, whether USA Today or Scientific American, are not terribly discerning.

Most definitely. And scientists themselves are often at fault, for not being up front and explicit about the level of confidence in various results, so that the lay public sees only two categories, "science" and "not science", instead of a spectrum of varying levels of confidence. So when something the public thought was "science" turns out to be wrong, the public's reaction is to assume that other stuff that was categorized as "science" must really be "not science" as well, instead of to recognize that the original claim didn't have very high confidence to begin with.

 

[houlahound]

what do you guys think of my new cosmological model;

in the 11'th dimension when dimensions 0 thru 11 were still potentialities the giant ostrich laid a cosmic egg, the egg smashed and there was a rapid release of energy followed by a period of rapid expansion, the cosmic egg smash I predict would have caused gravitational waves. the cries of the ostrich can still be heard in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

I need some help with the maths, thoughts/opinions...

 

[PeterDonis]

what do you guys think of my new cosmological model

I dunno, it sounds just like string theory to me. Except for the ostrich part...

 

[A N Madhavan]

Nice article PeterDonis. I liked the reasons why nonscientists choose B over A. From the crackpot threads that I've seen, it often seems that the basic motivation for them is wanting to be famous for coming up with a new theory - regardless of how little sense their theory makes. Some of them do go to great lengths to 'prove' themselves but they really don't know even the basics.

I do agree. Intentions definitely have influence on our understandings.

 

[Drakkith]

I dunno, it sounds just like string theory to me. Except for the ostrich part...

My model predicts the ostrich and predicts its mass to fall within a narrow range of 10⁶ to 10⁹ kg. But I need a large machine to collide the smaller birds necessary to produce the ostrich.

 

[ComplexVar89]

Is it wrong to say, if you are this interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you'd need?

Not that I have any designs on coming up with an Earth-shattering theory--I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm that brilliant, no matter how much study I ever do. Science generally doesn't work like that, anyway. Still this comment gives me pause. Sometimes, it's simply not possible for one to attend an institution that serves one's needs in that respect--ever. Some limitations can never be surmounted, but must be worked around. Mine aren't intellectual, but social and emotional, combined with just enough impulsive shooting myself in the foot when I was younger, (while not even knowing what was wrong with me.)

The self-imposed fear one may learn the material incorrectly or have critical holes in their knowledge can be crippling in that case, especially if they know no one that matters will ever take them seriously, no matter that their mindset is the antithesis of a crackpot's. They'd be happy to toil away in relative obscurity the rest of their life just to have the chance to see things at the "bleeding edge" of things and maybe contribute a little back.

Should we be cast aside? After all, isolation is one of the surest paths to the echo-chamber effect, where one can't even see that they're wrong, because there's no one qualified around to tell them so.

I'd go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one has to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory. You never know--there might be some people out there with one (or more) of the "invisible disabilities" who could contribute under the right circumstances.

I don't know, maybe what I'm saying is that maybe the scientific community could prop the door open a little for those of us who are passionate about science and are willing to work to get in but must take a different route to get there.

 

[russ_watters]

Should we be cast aside? After all, isolation is one of the surest paths to the echo-chamber effect, where one can't even see that they're wrong, because there's no one qualified around to tell them so.

I'd go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one has to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory.

A tiny bit? No, it is pretty discriminatory -- and on purpose. Engineering is even more so. In certain disciplines/job types in most states you are required by law to have a 4-year degree in engineering and a state issued license to even call yourself an "engineer" (there are no such formal rules in research sciences as far as I know). Engineering used to be a trade and until fairly recently anyone could work for an engineer as an apprentice and then take the professional engineer exam. Not anymore.

The stakes are higher with engineering. If a scientific paper turns out to be wrong, it is't generally that big of a deal, whereas mistakes in certain engineering disciplines can kill people. As you might expect, doctors also have licensing requirements...

 

[Charles Carter]

More specifically, we can get tired of answering questions that have already been answered, either in FAQs here on PF or on other sites that we've linked to already numerous times. We do this in our free time, so we can't provide the same level of pedagogy that a school or a textbook does.
I would say the fundamental issue here is not reproducibility per se, but calling something "science" when it hasn't been reproduced (or more generally, when it hasn't been given the quality control checks that should be done before anything gets to be called "science").
Most definitely. And scientists themselves are often at fault, for not being up front and explicit about the level of confidence in various results, so that the lay public sees only two categories, "science" and "not science", instead of a spectrum of varying levels of confidence. So when something the public thought was "science" turns out to be wrong, the public's reaction is to assume that other stuff that was categorized as "science" must really be "not science" as well, instead of to recognize that the original claim didn't have very high confidence to begin with.

Re: 1st point- Trust me I understand. And it's obvious many such as yourself devote a good deal of time to PF to promote interest in and understanding of physics. I have noted posts where, even to me, the OP seems , almost willfully, to not understand.
Re- Second- Absolutely. The overwhelming majority of science advances over time and only by consensus. Unfortunately most of the lay public fails to understand this.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I believe a lot of money goes into the LHC by people looking to get a financial return from spin off's, IMO. The science is secondary.

Things have always been that way. Throughout history, Scientists have relied on patrons - private or state. Some organisations run research departments which do 'blue skies' work and which produce nothing useful from some projects. Universities exist because of income from commercial firms. When it comes to getting funding, there can be as much skill in spinning the right tale as in carrying out the experiments.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'd go so far as to say that the implicit stipulation one has to follow the traditional path just to get in the door is just a tiny bit (unintentionally, of course) discriminatory.

The "traditional path" is to learn about the field, and that includes what has gone before, and it includes what people are working on now. If people don't want to go down this path, shouldn't the field be discriminatory?

 

[sophiecentaur]

If people don't want to go down this path,

If they don't want to go through this path then where are they to start from? No one can start from scratch and they must get their initial opinions from somewhere. If it's a non-standard start then it's very likely that the path will not have 'converged' with a viable finish. It's very common on Forums (though not so common on PF) for people to get petulant and throw a wobbler when their nonsense is not taken seriously. They identify themselves with Tesla (mostly). Enough said.
At least, the mission statement of PF is quite unequivocal about this so they cannot really complain. You can't join a Rugby club and play American Football; it's different rules.

 

[thefurlong]

This is a ridiculous question. There are so many reasons not to, all specific to different people.

Maybe. But no one can expect to get to a good stage of understanding by superficial 'reading round' on the Internet and then submitting whacky ideas on discussion forums. There are alternatives to 'Institutions' but a Science Forum is certainly not sufficient.
I would change your description of "different people" to "exceptional and unusually gifted people". Would you expect to become a World Class Footballer from kicking a ball around on your own?

The problem is that these days, going into scientific research is prohibitively expensive for many people (like me), especially if you're already paying off debts from your first time in school. I would love to spend all of my time studying physics rather than doing these intellectually non-stimulating computer programming tasks that I am paid to do every day. However, I would also prefer not to add $80k more debt to the debt I already have, and I certainly don't want to find myself living in poverty as a graduate student.

The fact is that the troglodytes running my country have decided that encouraging people to go into scientific research is not a priority. Additionally, the prospect of doing university research is less than enticing at this point, given that university boards think that investing in frequent, safe, results is way more important than investing in attempts to truly innovate. These aspects of research create a fairly imposing barrier to entry for many people.

How many innovators are there in this world who have fallen by the wayside because their true interest lies in making fundamental progress rather than incremental progress? How many others never reached their full potential because, in order to actually obtain knowledge, they have to sacrifice their financial well-being by doing the financial equivalent of purchasing a car every year for 4 years, or more.

And heaven forbid they have a learning disability, which is just mild enough not to count as debilitating according to some arbitrary benchmark, but just severe enough to negatively affect their academic performance, which, in turn, affects the prestige of the institution that accepts them for research?

 

[Drakkith]

The problem is that these days, going into scientific research is prohibitively expensive for many people (like me), especially if you're already paying off debts from your first time in school. I would love to spend all of my time studying physics rather than doing these intellectually non-stimulating computer programming tasks that I am paid to do every day. However, I would also prefer not to add $80k more debt to the debt I already have, and I certainly don't want to find myself living in poverty as a graduate student.

This is not a modern problem. The fact that performing scientific research is too expensive for the average person (or generates too little income to live off of) has been going on for thousands of years.

The fact is that the troglodytes running my country have decided that encouraging people to go into scientific research is not a priority. Additionally, the prospect of doing university research is less than enticing at this point, given that university boards think that investing in frequent, safe, results is way more important than investing in attempts to truly innovate. These aspects of research create a fairly imposing barrier to entry for many people.

I don't see how any of this is an "imposing barrier to entry". It looks more like a restriction of choices, not a barrier.

How many innovators are there in this world who have fallen by the wayside because their true interest lies in making fundamental progress rather than incremental progress? How many others never reached their full potential because, in order to actually obtain knowledge, they have to sacrifice their financial well-being by doing the financial equivalent of purchasing a car every year for 4 years, or more.

For the first sentence, I would say relatively few. For the second, I would agree that this is a general problem with college education, at least here in the US. Plenty of people are unable to obtain a college education because they lack either the money to pay for school, or the money to support themselves while attending school, both of which prevent them from getting a college education or make it extremely difficult or slow.

And heaven forbid they have a learning disability, which is just mild enough not to count as debilitating according to some arbitrary benchmark, but just severe enough to negatively affect their academic performance, which, in turn, affects the prestige of the institution that accepts them for research?

I don't think learning disabilities and their effect on a person or a college really fits into the topic of this thread.

 

[ComplexVar89]

The "traditional path" is to learn about the field, and that includes what has gone before, and it includes what people are working on now. If people don't want to go down this path, shouldn't the field be discriminatory?

Forgive my imprecision. By "traditional path", I mean having to go to college in person. I am in college for a math based degree, but one can't exactly earn a physics degree online. Online is the only tenable option for me, however, due to a bunch of reasons. Note that I'm willing to put in the effort to study physics on my own.

From the outside it appears that the only way one can network is by going to college in person, however. If one can't network, one has no hope of ever being able to do viable reaserch, no matter how much study they do. See my problem?

 

[Wee-Lamm]

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn't world enough and time to consider everybody's idea. That's why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.

In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren't knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for your idea that you aren't willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.

I agree entirely, and I was not suggesting that every notion should be examined nor that every crackpot deserves to be heard at all, let alone fairly. I think though, that we each should be at least minutely open to ponder positions we have not considered before and not merely dismiss the thought because the poser lacks credentials. Most people do deserve to be dismissed, for the most part, until they have proven they merit at least a cursory listen.

If we are knowledgeable of a subject and we should feel the need to respond at all, we should respond only to the thought presented, regardless of who forwarded the notion. I do also agree, this forum has much more to offer than to be a vetting arena for new theories.

Thankfully, I don't have any of those myself and I'm learning to stick to subject matter I am knowledgeable in, typically from a practical perspective as opposed to purely academic. :-)

 

[Wee-Lamm]

No one is actually limiting anyone from thinking creatively. But there is no requirement for anyone to pay attention. As the thread title asks: "Why won't you look at my new theory" ... the answer is because no one HAS to ... there needs to be a compelling argument or else it is likely a waste of time. The burden is on the individual to create a compelling argument, not on the audience to decipher a non-compelling argument.

Yes, but that should apply equally if we choose to respond. If we don't feel the thought deserves a response, even if only due to lack of credentials, we can simply not respond. If we do respond, we should argue against the thought and not their having proven they've earned the right to present it.

You are right though, OP did not ask why their theories were being openly dismissed, which is different from being ignored. :-)

 

[PeterDonis]

I think though, that we each should be at least minutely open to ponder positions we have not considered before and not merely dismiss the thought because the poser lacks credentials.

This sounds good on the surface, but then you say this:

Most people do deserve to be dismissed, for the most part, until they have proven they merit at least a cursory listen.

So how do we tell when someone no longer deserves to be dismissed and has proven that they merit at least a cursory listen? The position I am taking is, we tell by seeing if they understand what is already known in the field under discussion, and can explain how their new idea relates to what is already known. If they can't demonstrate that, they don't merit a listen.

The PF rules on acceptable sources, which I referenced in the article, are an attempt to at least approximate the above. Note that the rules are not hard and fast; they don't say nobody without credentials will ever be listened to, period. But having credentials does make it easier to demonstrate that you understand what is already known.

An approximation is the best we're going to be able to do in any case, because, as I said before, there isn't enough time to consider every idea. We have to have a quick heuristic filter to make things manageable. If you are saying credentials aren't the right quick heuristic filter, what do you think is?

 

[PeterDonis]

If we don't feel the thought deserves a response, even if only due to lack of credentials, we can simply not respond.

Forum moderators often don't have that option. We have to try to maintain an acceptable signal to noise ratio. That means we have to do more than just not respond to posts that don't deserve a response; we have to draw a line beyond which we actively discourage such posts instead of just ignoring them.

If we do respond, we should argue against the thought and not their having proven they've earned the right to present it.

Some posts are simply too vague or incoherent to even argue against. Sometimes there is no way to respond except to just inform the person that the post doesn't meet PF's rules, period.

 

[Wee-Lamm]

Forum moderators often don't have that option. We have to try to maintain an acceptable signal to noise ratio. That means we have to do more than just not respond to posts that don't deserve a response; we have to draw a line beyond which we actively discourage such posts instead of just ignoring them.
Some posts are simply too vague or incoherent to even argue against. Sometimes there is no way to respond except to just inform the person that the post doesn't meet PF's rules, period.

I agree, you moderate well ... from what I've seen. :-)

 

[PeterDonis]

you moderate well ... from what I've seen. :-)

Thanks!

 

[Wee-Lamm]

This sounds good on the surface, but then you say this:
So how do we tell when someone no longer deserves to be dismissed and has proven that they merit at least a cursory listen? The position I am taking is, we tell by seeing if they understand what is already known in the field under discussion, and can explain how their new idea relates to what is already known. If they can't demonstrate that, they don't merit a listen.

The PF rules on acceptable sources, which I referenced in the article, are an attempt to at least approximate the above. Note that the rules are not hard and fast; they don't say nobody without credentials will ever be listened to, period. But having credentials does make it easier to demonstrate that you understand what is already known.

An approximation is the best we're going to be able to do in any case, because, as I said before, there isn't enough time to consider every idea. We have to have a quick heuristic filter to make things manageable. If you are saying credentials aren't the right quick heuristic filter, what do you think is?

I won't pretend to moderate, you and your peers do an excellent job already. As a mere poster, It is not my place to lament a poster for not adhering to forum rules.

As a reader, I don't want to be in the habit of avoiding every post that comes from someone who hasn't yet proven themselves, at the risk of missing that rare one that does make sense. I have that luxury as I don't have to wear both hats.

 

[Laroxe]

I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it. Of course the fact that many are already in full time employment makes this impractical. I have always considered it part of the remit of people working in science to help people understand their work, particularly if the scientist is in a publicly funded post, paid for by the very people they criticise.
Failure to engage with the public and dismissal of ideas misses an opportunity to use the interest expressed and fuels conspiracy ideation, we then have the situation of people becoming overtly sceptical and failing to support the sciences. Worse still, in people who's ideas are simply ignored or dismissed, people feel insulted, dislike the associations with those who insult them and actively or passively work against the ideas they promote. Many in science bemoan the fact that so many people adopts what they refer to as irrational beliefs, because the scientists clearly don't understand that beliefs are more than facts. There is a lot written about the so called "crisis of confidence" in science, for scientists to continue to attribute this to the public's lack of understanding shows an amazing lack of insight into the role of their own behaviour. Explaining why an idea might be wrong because of some unappreciated basic facts, will often take less than 10 minutes

 

[PeterDonis]

I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows

While I agree this happens and is not really justified in itself (for the reasons you give), the situation I discussed in the article is a lot more specific than this: it's a situation where a person is proposing a new theory, and asking scientists to pay attention to it, when they don't know what the scientists know about the specific field in which the theory is proposed. That's very different from scientists expecting all nonscientists to know what the scientists know.

I have always considered it part of the remit of people working in science to help people understand their work, particularly if the scientist is in a publicly funded post, paid for by the very people they criticise.

If the scientist's work is publicly funded, I agree. I'm not sure I agree if the scientist's work is self-funded or privately funded; but that's fairly rare these days.

There is a lot written about the so called "crisis of confidence" in science, for scientists to continue to attribute this to the public's lack of understanding shows an amazing lack of insight into the role of their own behaviour.

I agree that scientists' behavior plays a role, certainly. I believe I posted about this earlier in this thread: scientists often do not make clear the widely varying levels of confidence in different scientific findings, so the public, instead of being shown a spectrum of ideas, from extremely solid through varying levels of confidence down to extremely speculative, is given a picture of "Science" vs. "Not Science", period. And since some of the things that got labeled "Science" turn out to be wrong--because they should have been labeled "speculative" to begin with--the public concludes that "Science" is not reliable, because the scientists themselves painted the picture that way.

However, this is a very different problem from the problem I discussed in the article. Here the non-scientists aren't trying to propose new ideas themselves; they're just trying to understand the ideas the scientists already have. Scientists have, IMO, an obligation to present those ideas honestly, and not claim the authority of "Science"--i.e., knowledge you ignore at your peril--for ideas that don't deserve it.

Explaining why an idea might be wrong because of some unappreciated basic facts, will often take less than 10 minutes

This sounds good in theory, but it is strongly falsified by actual experience in forums where this is tried--for example, here on PF. Most people who fit the profile I described in the article (and again above)--i.e., people who are proposing their own new idea in a scientific field in which they have not taken the time to understand what is already known--simply don't listen when you tell them the simple unappreciated basic facts that make their idea wrong. Instead, they double down, saying that they're not being listened to because scientists are closed-minded and don't want to consider new ideas. And the discussion thread goes on for hundreds of posts--unless someone like a moderator here on PF shuts it down. And even then we often get complaints by PM that we have shut down the discussion prematurely without giving fair consideration to the person's new idea.

 

[ZapperZ]

I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it. Of course the fact that many are already in full time employment makes this impractical. I have always considered it part of the remit of people working in science to help people understand their work, particularly if the scientist is in a publicly funded post, paid for by the very people they criticise.
Failure to engage with the public and dismissal of ideas misses an opportunity to use the interest expressed and fuels conspiracy ideation, we then have the situation of people becoming overtly sceptical and failing to support the sciences. Worse still, in people who's ideas are simply ignored or dismissed, people feel insulted, dislike the associations with those who insult them and actively or passively work against the ideas they promote. Many in science bemoan the fact that so many people adopts what they refer to as irrational beliefs, because the scientists clearly don't understand that beliefs are more than facts. There is a lot written about the so called "crisis of confidence" in science, for scientists to continue to attribute this to the public's lack of understanding shows an amazing lack of insight into the role of their own behaviour. Explaining why an idea might be wrong because of some unappreciated basic facts, will often take less than 10 minutes

But I find this to be a completely different topic. "Public outreach" is not identical to "hey, tell me what's wrong with my theory". If you can't tell the difference (and if the general public can't tell the difference) between the two, then we have a problem!

I've been involved in public outreach for years and years. I had always welcomed interactions with the public, be it either during one of our open houses, a tour, or even via special events. I consider it my responsibility to inform the tax-paying public what their money is being used for, and why it is important to fund these endeavor. THOSE have never been in question and were never an issue here! Let's get that VERY clear.

And btw, those of you who complain of scientists not engaging with the public, etc., how many of you have made your own effort to engage with these scientists? How many of you have attended open houses at the various national labs and universities? How many of you have participated in the many public outreach programs to inform the public about science, and to interact with scientists? This is a two-way street! You cannot just sit back and whine "gimme, gimme, gimme..." and waiting to be spoon-fed.

The question comes in here when you want to write about, say India, but (i) you have never been there, (ii) you have never spoken to a wide spectrum of the population, (iii) you only learned about it from what you saw on TV! This has nothing to do with physics, or even science. It has everything to do with the irrationality of thinking that a superficial knowledge is sufficient to draw up ANY kind of a valid idea!

I've said this many times on here. There is a difference between wanting to learn and asking "Hey, I don't understand this physics thing. Why does it say so-and-so?" versus "Hey, I've come up with something that can explain this and that. Now go find something wrong with it." We welcome wholeheartedly the former. It is from someone who read something, it didn't sink it, and wanting to understand more. The latter is lazy person with visions of grandeur.

And while I'm on the subject, here's the promotion for http://www.anl.gov/videos/open-house-2016-promotional-video, which will be on May 21. Will you attend, or do they need to bring the show right next to your couch?

Zz.

 

[votingmachine]

Scientists always "fight with their hands tied behind their back", so to speak. I always have in my head the outside possibility that I am wrong. Quite often that leads to my statements being phrased with the element of doubt, using the scientific phrasing that Helen Quinn elegantly summarizes. Clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt never seems convincing to the person with foolish certainty. The qualifying statements that are part of ordinary science I think are misleading outside of people trained in that language.

And once you introduce miscommunication into a "debate", it spirals off quickly.

EDIT: I read this and "the outside possibility that I am wrong" comes off as a bit arrogant. I meant to extend the prior comments about scientific certainty and doubt, not sound like a condescending know-it-all.

You know I hate to SOUND like that ...

 

[PeterDonis]

Clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt never seems convincing to the person with foolish certainty.

Even non-clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt won't be convincing to the person with foolish certainty. The right thing for scientists to do in response to this is to continue to combat the idea that certainty is possible at all.

Feynman expressed this eloquently in his talk/essay on the value of science:

http://www.math.ucla.edu/~mwilliams/pdf/feynman.pdf

See in particular from the bottom of page 4 to the end.

There is also a video on YouTube:



I agree it's a fine line: there are some things that we know with such high confidence that "certainty" seems like the best way to describe our state of knowledge in layperson's terms. But even there, I think it is better to say that we aren't completely certain of anything--but we can't just sit and wait and do nothing because of that. We have to live our lives, so we have to act as if some things are certain even though nothing really is. So the real question should not be whether something is "true", it should be whether we have enough confidence to act on it in some particular way. Then we can have a more fruitful discussion about how much confidence we need for particular actions--roughly, the greater the stakes of a particular action, the more confidence you need in whatever knowledge you are basing your action on.

 

[ZapperZ]

Even non-clumsy language that leads to the implication of doubt won't be convincing to the person with foolish certainty. The right thing for scientists to do in response to this is to continue to combat the idea that certainty is possible at all.

But you need to thread very carefully in regards to this, because you can take this to the other extreme and gives the impression that scientists are uncertain about everything, and so, what's the point in listening to them?

I strongly hold the view that Helen Quinn has stated, that there ARE things that we can talk about with a very high degree of confidence about their validity. Otherwise, things just won't work! It is HOW we state it to another party that do not have the same in-depth understanding of science that is an issue. I strongly subscribe to the idea that "What you say is not what they understand". You may say and mean something, but that message is often not exactly what the receiver got. In my interaction with the public, this is a very common theme, and it is why I often repeat the message, if it is important enough, via many different ways.

Zz.

 

[PeterDonis]

you can take this to the other extreme and gives the impression that scientists are uncertain about everything, and so, what's the point in listening to them?

Yes, that's why I said it's a fine line.

I strongly hold the view that Helen Quinn has stated, that there ARE things that we can talk about with a very high degree of confidence about their validity.

Yes, agreed. The question is how best to convey that to a lay person. Should we say we're "certain" of these things? Or should we say our information is good enough to act on (even if the stakes are high), even though we're not, strictly speaking, "certain" of anything? In practical terms, they amount to the same thing, but as you say, they might not convey the same message to the hearer.

Even this would be less of a problem if scientists were careful about conveying different levels of confidence; but they aren't. For example, many physicists talk about string theory as if it had the same level of confidence as, say, celestial mechanics in the solar system. So when other physicists say that string theory is just speculative and give what look like cogent reasons for doubting it, the impression the lay public gets is that "science" in general, even celestial mechanics in the solar system, is unreliable.

Or, even worse, because it's only really possible to falsify hypotheses in the hard sciences, the lay public gets the impression that hard science, even celestial mechanics in the solar system, is less reliable than, say, economics, which does not have anything like the predictive power of any hard science. But it's also a lot easier in a field like economics to make up plausible-sounding explanations for anything that happens, so it can seem more reliable to the lay person simply because you can never catch an economist being flat out wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it.

I don't understand the example; you mean construction work? Yes, indeed, scientists are not qualified to do construction work. I'm an engineer moderator of the engineering section: We lock a thread about once a week due to the danger of unqualified construction or building systems engineering (structural, boilers and electrical systems mostly). It doesn't matter if that person is a scientist and I'm quite certain our scientist moderators are not hypocritical when it comes to the need for proper qualifications in other disciplines.

 

[Irene Fenswick]

The reason is the people once accepted a theory and they don't care that something might be different. If something really is, then it is better to leave science to the professional scientists.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows

It's not because they don't know stuff. It's because those particular non-Scientists seem to imagine Science is easy and that they are qualified, on the strength of a few TV programs and half baked websites, to make up hypotheses. Science is hard and it is an exclusive club for people who actually know their stuff. Everything else is fantasy and playing. No use getting upset about that. It's always possible to become member by actually learning some real Science.

 

[Scott Mayers]

I agree to much of the OP but think that there are other factors involved too that get overlooked and create real problems both inside and out of what people consider is 'science'. "Science" is generally the practice, skill, and logic derived through the act of observing the world. The blur of distinction of this as a part of philosophy as a whole is that it is hard to determine where the role of logic plays (I'm using this generically to also include math and any processes of inference not directly associated with the act of observing itself.) To me, as many others, the concerns most relevant to physics/science beyond practical applications or to localized phenomena are to the applications of the explanations being used to describe reality and the methods used to infer the conclusions accepted, are the significant issue. These are philosophical and go beyond simply just 'observing' alone. The degree to contentions between people, scientist or not, is to which matters are to be considered 'scientific' and who are the arbiters granted authority to deem one as qualified or not as being sufficiently wise to draw conclusions that should or should not get noticed. This is then moved into the realm of politics and deserves granting respect to all people on this subject (unless you think 'science' is itself is fair to act as a political body in your particular political opinion). As such, when it comes to 'theories', we have to not assume that outsiders to the profession of one considered a scientist is simply non-scientific by default. In fact, you also have to consider a distinction between those who are 'taught' something regardless of where they are taught (through some institution OR to some external influences) and to those who 'internalize' WHAT they are actually learning. You can be an apparently great at absorbing information and utilizing this with skill in practice but be completely unable to appropriately BE actually intelligent, no matter how scientifically qualified or admired en mass by the community.

I have my own 'theories'. Of course without proof, they are 'conjecture'. One conjecture I'll state up front here is that I believe that in all times and places, religion is itself an evolutionary phase of what originated as some 'science' of a previous era and that the way the institutes that pass this on through politics, eventually turns that era's actual science into a future religion hiding the original wisdom involved. And it is this to which I fear is most disconcerting with respect to even our present paradigm, especially to the science on the extremes (Atomic to Cosmic). An example is how we confuse the distinction of those like Newton or Einstein as 'scientists' when they are more appropriately 'philosophers of science' and act as the intellectuals who connect the conclusions of practical science to theory through some form of logic and their capacity to explain there ideas to others. Often, the very explanations themselves though are also tied up with ART and while appearing credible, may also have other explanations that either equally or better improve the actual interpretation of reality within the same logic of the theory but differing in perspective. But because these heroes of science 'own' the unique position to demonstrate a novel but REAL logical explanation for some theory, we don't notice the way the 'art' they use often gets equally transferred into their theory without realizing that this factor can contribute to a hidden flaw of the theory. Some person can think of a great explanation to some mathematical model they use that 'fits' appropriately to the use of that theory in practice but could be completely false itself. And this logic gets missed by even the most credible of people everywhere.

Thus, just as an initial reflection on this topic, I think we have to not dismiss those speaking of theories, whether one qualifies them or not, as long as they appear to be sincere. The more valid reason why people don't read another ones 'theories' is due to the fact that most are Twitter-minded when it comes to others ideas that don't default to some conventionally accepted view. It's as practical as one religious person to opt out of wasting time reading another's views beyond a Tweet (soundbite) that requires investment to some uncertain nor welcomed opposing view, as it is to those here who may opt not to read some 'theory'. Also, if one should be asked to "do one's homework", while reasonable, it goes without saying. This attitude of a teacher-to-student mentality is the very authoritarianism which points to its politics, not to some wisdom of one scientifically credible.

Science today is at fault where it has become a commodity too. If 'science' should be credible to represent universal knowledge, no one would actually ever have to pay for it nor be privileged to some prior respect to its institution prior to demonstrating the same respect to those they are trying to appeal to.

 

[twiz_]

Spoiler

I agree to much of the OP but think that there are other factors involved too that get overlooked and create real problems both inside and out of what people consider is 'science'. "Science" is generally the practice, skill, and logic derived through the act of observing the world. The blur of distinction of this as a part of philosophy as a whole is that it is hard to determine where the role of logic plays (I'm using this generically to also include math and any processes of inference not directly associated with the act of observing itself.) To me, as many others, the concerns most relevant to physics/science beyond practical applications or to localized phenomena are to the applications of the explanations being used to describe reality and the methods used to infer the conclusions accepted, are the significant issue. These are philosophical and go beyond simply just 'observing' alone. The degree to contentions between people, scientist or not, is to which matters are to be considered 'scientific' and who are the arbiters granted authority to deem one as qualified or not as being sufficiently wise to draw conclusions that should or should not get noticed. This is then moved into the realm of politics and deserves granting respect to all people on this subject (unless you think 'science' is itself is fair to act as a political body in your particular political opinion). As such, when it comes to 'theories', we have to not assume that outsiders to the profession of one considered a scientist is simply non-scientific by default. In fact, you also have to consider a distinction between those who are 'taught' something regardless of where they are taught (through some institution OR to some external influences) and to those who 'internalize' WHAT they are actually learning. You can be an apparently great at absorbing information and utilizing this with skill in practice but be completely unable to appropriately BE actually intelligent, no matter how scientifically qualified or admired en mass by the community.

I have my own 'theories'. Of course without proof, they are 'conjecture'. One conjecture I'll state up front here is that I believe that in all times and places, religion is itself an evolutionary phase of what originated as some 'science' of a previous era and that the way the institutes that pass this on through politics, eventually turns that era's actual science into a future religion hiding the original wisdom involved. And it is this to which I fear is most disconcerting with respect to even our present paradigm, especially to the science on the extremes (Atomic to Cosmic). An example is how we confuse the distinction of those like Newton or Einstein as 'scientists' when they are more appropriately 'philosophers of science' and act as the intellectuals who connect the conclusions of practical science to theory through some form of logic and their capacity to explain there ideas to others. Often, the very explanations themselves though are also tied up with ART and while appearing credible, may also have other explanations that either equally or better improve the actual interpretation of reality within the same logic of the theory but differing in perspective. But because these heroes of science 'own' the unique position to demonstrate a novel but REAL logical explanation for some theory, we don't notice the way the 'art' they use often gets equally transferred into their theory without realizing that this factor can contribute to a hidden flaw of the theory. Some person can think of a great explanation to some mathematical model they use that 'fits' appropriately to the use of that theory in practice but could be completely false itself. And this logic gets missed by even the most credible of people everywhere.

Thus, just as an initial reflection on this topic, I think we have to not dismiss those speaking of theories, whether one qualifies them or not, as long as they appear to be sincere. The more valid reason why people don't read another ones 'theories' is due to the fact that most are Twitter-minded when it comes to others ideas that don't default to some conventionally accepted view. It's as practical as one religious person to opt out of wasting time reading another's views beyond a Tweet (soundbite) that requires investment to some uncertain nor welcomed opposing view, as it is to those here who may opt not to read some 'theory'. Also, if one should be asked to "do one's homework", while reasonable, it goes without saying. This attitude of a teacher-to-student mentality is the very authoritarianism which points to its politics, not to some wisdom of one scientifically credible.

Science today is at fault where it has become a commodity too. If 'science' should be credible to represent universal knowledge, no one would actually ever have to pay for it nor be privileged to some prior respect to its institution prior to demonstrating the same respect to those they are trying to appeal to.

You couldn't have said it better.

 

[PeterDonis]

who are the arbiters granted authority to deem one as qualified or not as being sufficiently wise to draw conclusions that should or should not get noticed

The answer to this one is easy: nobody. A scientific theory should stand or fall based on whether its predictions match experiments. No "authority" except experiment deems it right or wrong.

The issue I see here is that you are confusing the truth I just stated with a different statement: that, since a theory stands or falls based on whether its predictions match experiments, any time anyone comes up with any idea they think is a "scientific theory", it should get tested by experiment. That's not possible. People have to make judgments about what ideas are or aren't worth developing and testing. The fact that you think you have a great new theory does not mean anyone else either will or should agree with you. And in fact the odds are very heavily against you: that's why I went to the trouble in the article of pointing out that the vast majority of situations are of type A, not type B. Furthermore, the vast majority of "theories" that people come up with are not scientific theories--they're just vague ideas that can't even be put into a form that could be tested anyway. As Pauli said, they're "not even wrong".

This is then moved into the realm of politics and deserves granting respect to all people on this subject

I'll have to be blunt here: no. Nobody's idea deserves respect just because they came up with it. The way to get respect for your idea is to do the hard work yourself of learning what is currently known, and being able to explain how your new idea provides something that is missing from what is currently known, and showing how your idea can be tested so we can see which way Nature votes. In other words, it's up to you, the person with the idea, to show that the situation your idea addresses is truly of type B, not type A. It's not up to anyone else to grant your idea respect just because you think it's a good one.

An example is how we confuse the distinction of those like Newton or Einstein as 'scientists' when they are more appropriately 'philosophers of science' and act as the intellectuals who connect the conclusions of practical science to theory through some form of logic and their capacity to explain there ideas to others.

I think you have an extremely narrow view of what "science" consists of. Newton and Einstein were scientists. Newton not only developed his theories, he ran his own experiments to test them; look up, for example, his experiments with optics. Einstein, while he was not an experimentalist himself, kept in very close touch with experimentalists as he developed his theories, so that he was up to date on the latest experimental results. Look up, for example, his work on the photoelectric effect or his work with Perrin on Brownian motion--these are good examples because they're less well known than his classic work on relativity, so they often get forgotten about when Einstein is mistakenly thought of as an ivory-tower theorist.

I think we have to not dismiss those speaking of theories, whether one qualifies them or not, as long as they appear to be sincere.

If we actually adopted this policy in practice, we would be unable to have any kind of useful discussion of science. The extremely rare ideas that are worth considering would be drowned out by orders of magnitude by the noise of people who simply don't have enough understanding to have useful ideas, but who insist on being heard.

Note, btw, that even people who have taken the time to understand what is currently known only very rarely have new ideas that end up being worth considering. The difference is that someone who has taken the time can quickly see that most of their new ideas won't work, all by themselves, without having to demand anyone else's time and attention.

If 'science' should be credible to represent universal knowledge, no one would actually ever have to pay for it nor be privileged to some prior respect to its institution prior to demonstrating the same respect to those they are trying to appeal to.

Science is universal knowledge because anyone can learn it--if they put in the time and effort. Someone who wants the respect without having put in the time and effort is, as Robert Heinlein once said, like someone who wants to be a concert pianist, but does not want to practice.

 

[houlahound]

given nobody has refuted my Ostrich theory how do I go about gaining wider acceptance so it gets adopted into school curriculums and stuff ie - Ostrich ex-nihilo Theory.

I would like my theory to be legislated into official-ness.

 

[Charles Carter]

The answer to this one is easy: nobody. A scientific theory should stand or fall based on whether its predictions match experiments. No "authority" except experiment deems it right or wrong.

The issue I see here is that you are confusing the truth I just stated with a different statement: that, since a theory stands or falls based on whether its predictions match experiments, any time anyone comes up with any idea they think is a "scientific theory", it should get tested by experiment. That's not possible. People have to make judgments about what ideas are or aren't worth developing and testing. The fact that you think you have a great new theory does not mean anyone else either will or should agree with you. And in fact the odds are very heavily against you: that's why I went to the trouble in the article of pointing out that the vast majority of situations are of type A, not type B. Furthermore, the vast majority of "theories" that people come up with are not scientific theories--they're just vague ideas that can't even be put into a form that could be tested anyway. As Pauli said, they're "not even wrong".
I'll have to be blunt here: no. Nobody's idea deserves respect just because they came up with it. The way to get respect for your idea is to do the hard work yourself of learning what is currently known, and being able to explain how your new idea provides something that is missing from what is currently known, and showing how your idea can be tested so we can see which way Nature votes. In other words, it's up to you, the person with the idea, to show that the situation your idea addresses is truly of type B, not type A. It's not up to anyone else to grant your idea respect just because you think it's a good one.
I think you have an extremely narrow view of what "science" consists of. Newton and Einstein were scientists. Newton not only developed his theories, he ran his own experiments to test them; look up, for example, his experiments with optics. Einstein, while he was not an experimentalist himself, kept in very close touch with experimentalists as he developed his theories, so that he was up to date on the latest experimental results. Look up, for example, his work on the photoelectric effect or his work with Perrin on Brownian motion--these are good examples because they're less well known than his classic work on relativity, so they often get forgotten about when Einstein is mistakenly thought of as an ivory-tower theorist.
If we actually adopted this policy in practice, we would be unable to have any kind of useful discussion of science. The extremely rare ideas that are worth considering would be drowned out by orders of magnitude by the noise of people who simply don't have enough understanding to have useful ideas, but who insist on being heard.

Note, btw, that even people who have taken the time to understand what is currently known only very rarely have new ideas that end up being worth considering. The difference is that someone who has taken the time can quickly see that most of their new ideas won't work, all by themselves, without having to demand anyone else's time and attention.
Science is universal knowledge because anyone can learn it--if they put in the time and effort. Someone who wants the respect without having put in the time and effort is, as Robert Heinlein once said, like someone who wants to be a concert pianist, but does not want to practice.

Merely an aside (as I agree with your post), but reputation and academic standing, some might say politics, have been shown to affect likelihood of acceptance in peer-reviewed journals. It is a problem, but given the previously mentioned signal to noise ratio, I'm not sure a better solution exists. And no one expects a peer reviewed journal to give much time to anyone without academic credentials. And here all knowledgeable respondents are volunteering their time and absolutely have freedom to choose what to read and reply to.

 

[ZapperZ]

Merely an aside (as I agree with your post), but reputation and academic standing, some might say politics, have been shown to affect likelihood of acceptance in peer-reviewed journals.

Do you have a study that shows this?

When I review a manuscript, I am never swayed by the authors or where they are from. I've rejected manuscripts from top institutions.

However, this can easily be an example where correlation does not imply causation. I can easily argue that authors from reputable institutions tend to have access to better facilities, better funding, better professional networking, etc that they tend to produce work that gets published due to the level of importance. So even if authors from such institutions are more likely to get published, the CAUSE isn't the name of their institution.

Zz.

 

[Charles Carter]

Sorry, in 10 min can't come up with a study. My recollection is that when the same study presented for peer review is authored by someone known in the field (especially more insular highly specialized areas where there are 'insiders') it is substantially more likely to be accepted than when authored by an unknown. This is concordant with the grant application process as explained to me by a biomedical researcher I knew. This is the effect I was referring to, but other problems exist. See

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42553/title/Mass-Retraction/

A similar con involved a terrible, wholly fictional study (intended to reveal problems) with terrible design that 'proved' that dark chocolate is good for the heart. It was so successful news picked it up and, if you're like me, thought this was the case. It's not- it was a hoax.

Lastly, to address some of these issues, nature offers double- blind peer reviews-

http://www.nature.com/news/nature-journals-offer-double-blind-review-1.16931

Whom do you review for?

 

[Dale]

When I review a manuscript, I am never swayed by the authors or where they are from. I've rejected manuscripts from top institutions.

Most of the journals I review for use a blind review process, so I don't even know who they are or what their credentials.

I don't know if that is typical in other fields, but it at least refutes that criticism for some portion of journals.

 

[Dale]

I always think its strange how many scientists criticize non scientists because they don't know what the scientist knows, its a bit like suggesting that any scientist who needs some building work done, should go and learn how to do it.

I don't think that you thought your example through all the way. If a scientist needs some building work done then they don't need to learn how to do it. But if the scientists wants to actually DO the building work or DESIGN it then they had better learn how first! Same with science, if you think science/architecture is cool and want gain a recreational appreciation or admiration for fine examples then that is fine. If you want to produce/design your own buildings/science then you surely need to learn.