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

[Scott Mayers]

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".

You asserted this: "I want to look at the more general question of why there is apparently so little interest in such personal theories,independently of whatever rules a particular forum might have." You were assuming something intrinsic in the thought processes of those proposing theories with the added assumption that the ones of concern are non-scientists. You also assume something about the audience since your thesis is worded to question why they aren't reading.

I'm not sure how we can be sure of what does actually get read if this is based on others responding. An 'agreeable' posting by someone may justify a non-response because it may provide sufficient closure to others that they find no need to respond. Adding anything may only be of compliment in such cases and is interpreted by many to be unnecessary, superfluous flattery or ass-kissing. So it is not just threads that get active updated responses that assure it is or is not being viewed by others in all cases. And also given that non-active threads get buried relatively fast, there is a short window of time from the last poster of which those who may potentially all agree don't respond for this reason and so loses the likelihood of even being noticed long enough to be certain the lack of activity assures it as being purposely ignored.

I'll have to be blunt here: no.[to asserting a political factor involved] 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.

The problem I think occurs though is that once someone gains a 'trust' upon something they've proven true with popular supports, just as one inversely may prove 'unpopular', reputation is inappropriately granted the deciding factor of whatever one's particular ideas are universally fair in their description of their own theory. Darwin, for instance, doesn't "own" his theory as some intrinsic characteristic of himself. That is, while we might lend his name to his own theory to help us remember which of many ideas are which, Natural Selection is NOT a property of Charles Darwin. This is why I find it odd, for instance, that some should bother responding to those asserting Darwin dismissed his own theory on his deathbed by attempting to show that he did not. If Darwin became a notorious evil criminal, would this matter to the relevance of his theory? So to me, giving relevance to the persons presenting a theory with either a good or a bad reputation is as much about politics and not necessarily to the virtue of the author.

I agree thus that nobody deserves respect for coming up with some theory, if you include those who came with with valid ones as much as invalid ones. But I'm unsure if you are trying to justify some reason to dismiss those who put forward 'theories' online in forums? We are no longer in need of much concern today to screen or referee material for publication because that was only truly justified by the limits of it being practical for the costs involved in publishing through printed media. It is relatively becoming 'obsolete' given we now have the Internet and relatively cheap means to store data. So for those who even remotely feel they have a reason to contribute their ideas, they should do so, even if in error. Its politics if one thinks they should curb their enthusiasm in 'theorizing' for fear of appearing dumb or unpopular or just because they appear to be invisible. You are positively asserting that there IS NO INTEREST in non-scientists presenting 'theories' by audiences. I have now argued that you cannot determine this based upon activity and so wonder how you determine even this? And why should it matter?

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.

'Narrow' only points to my reference of a minimal description uncontested by ALL people...that science AT LEAST is agreed to involve the act of observation. What is not so clear is to the degree of philosophy and logic involved is or is not 'science'.

Take the issue of 'predictability' for instance. If I predict X to occur and it does, while it may lend potential weight to those who witnessed my prediction prior to observing as validating some theory of mine, no matter how popular my theory is or even to how others are able to 'replicate' some experiment I might use to base my novel theory on, this is not sufficient to justify my unique explanation as the correct one or in need of someone else to propose a novel experiment to dislodge my explanation for their own. Yet it is rare to see anyone allow alternative explanations for some theories because credibility is extended to the original author's explanation by default even if one has some potentially better alternative explanation without a concern to defeating the actual theory, the math, or to its observations involved. The set of institutions involved rely on maintaining the credibility of their own heroes and agree to this among other institutes by default. As such, there is a tendency to conserve the original author's explanation with a demand that others MUST originate a new experiment, not simply an alternative explanation of the same theory via some alternative perspective. This is just one example of why some would put forward some 'alternative' theory. But note that I don't think the significance is on whether one's mere statement or preference of some "alternate" view exists makes them equally valid. The logic still MUST fit appropriately given all things accepted in observation as well as to predictions. This is logical just as it is true we can have a multitude of different architectures to design the same kind of computer with equivalent goals and use different languages to program them. It might be relatively arbitrary to care when given two computers with identical qualities which one explanation deserves any improvement. But when contrasting computers, say, with biology, for instance, one might have a form of explanation that combines what each area may seem conflicting at first by merely inverting some perspective component factors of one of those theories in their respective fields. (I think this can be done with QM and Relativity, for instance)

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.

I agree to this in principle but see that some things with regards to living conscious things, like us people, tend to always find some means to still abuse any means when we use this rationale to justify some form of censure. Take the economics of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" for example and how his arguments for a laissez-faire system is rational. This is valid on considering its evolutionary logic. But in practice, the business entities involved in fact DO tend towards monopolies now even without overtly conspiring by becoming virtually 'true' conspiracies. If we thus hand the right of some governments to demand censure of non-economic-liberalism with the best of original intents, it still leads to the abuses by businesses. The same goes for the opposing philosophies.

I think that the political aspects of censuring through even strict demarcation of science as one thing and philosophy as another leads to these problems too. But to get back to your article, I'm uncertain what you are suggesting beyond some "why's" about those posting 'theories' unless you felt a need to justify resistance. I can see that some might complain they may not be given attention by absent responses. But I'm guessing the actual complaints likely come from those being censured in some way, not to whether they are being read or not. In fact I'm guessing they are getting some form of attention you may personally think is too much in forums. The trick is to let people speak and if they don't contribute anything of value, they'll eventually get bored and not bother when no one responds nor censures them. It is the insult of being trivialized should censoring becomes apparent or to dismiss them as morons that leads to as much a rational reflective response to aid in the increased 'theorists' where they may exist.

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.

Agreed. But not enough respect is granted to some of those people who actually DO put the time and effort into self-education with a clear understanding of the issues but get dismissed for their different ways of trying to communicate or, more often, to not conforming to some authoritative standards and 'etiquette' that those that who often go through the formal systems don't realize they possesses as what others may call, 'elitist'. Formal education is more often about one's wealth and other inherent factors unnoticed as trivial factors. Something as subtle as being given a first vehicle before one turns 18 by a parent, even a junker, can make an extreme difference that gets overlooked. Give people charity up front. In time you might even influence them by your apparent acceptance rather than ridicule.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm not sure how we can be sure of what does actually get read if this is based on others responding.

Others responding is a sign that they're interested. Others not responding is a sign that they're not. Obviously that's not the only factor involved, but I didn't claim in the article that it was.

I'm unsure if you are trying to justify some reason to dismiss those who put forward 'theories' online in forums?

I'm trying to explain why others are extremely likely not to be interested in theories put forward online in forums. I'm not sure how "justification" is relevant; everyone has to decide for themselves what they are interested in and how to spend their time.

We are no longer in need of much concern today to screen or referee material for publication because that was only truly justified by the limits of it being practical for the costs involved in publishing through printed media

I think you're mistaken about the primary reasons why papers are peer-reviewed before being published in most journals. The primary reason is that journals have reputations to maintain; publication is supposed to be a reliable indicator that the work is worth taking seriously. As for "publication" in the sense of posting on arxiv.org, that's different; no screening or refereeing is done for that, because, as you say, putting things up on the Internet is cheap. They do require some sort of institutional affiliation, though; but other sites such a vixra have sprung up to allow people to get around that as well.

for those who even remotely feel they have a reason to contribute their ideas, they should do so, even if in error.

If you can't get posted on one of the sites mentioned above, you can always put up your own website; that can be done for a few dollars a month. Then you can post whatever you want. The issue I was discussing in the article is not who is "allowed" to post; it is about the interest or lack thereof that others will have in what is posted.

You are positively asserting that there IS NO INTEREST in non-scientists presenting 'theories' by audiences.

Um, you do realize that in the article, I said explicitly that the assumption that only "professional scientists" can come up with valid theories is wrong, don't you? And that I also said explicitly that even scientists can't always be trusted to fairly represent science?

What I have said, though more in this discussion than in the article itself, is that, if the person presenting their theory, whether they are a scientist or not, has not put in the time and effort to understand what is already known, and to be able to explain, in the accepted standard language of the field in question, how their new theory does something that existing theories don't, then they aren't likely to get any interest from others. That's not because they're "not a scientist"; it's because they haven't put in the time and effort.

I have now argued that you cannot determine this based upon activity and so wonder how you determine even this?

For someone who is familiar with a field, it's pretty easy to tell even from a single post whether a person proposing a new theory in that field understands the field. Whether or not anyone else has responded to the post is irrelevant in making that determination.

a minimal description uncontested by ALL people...that science AT LEAST is agreed to involve the act of observation

And the act of constructing theories to explain observations. Does anyone really believe that theories aren't part of science?

it is rare to see anyone allow alternative explanations for some theories because credibility is extended to the original author's explanation by default

You really need to learn more about how science is actually done.

one might have a form of explanation that combines what each area may seem conflicting at first by merely inverting some perspective component factors of one of those theories in their respective fields. (I think this can be done with QM and Relativity, for instance)

I'm not sure what this means. But it raises an obvious question: how much time and effort have you put into learning about QM and relativity?

I'm uncertain what you are suggesting beyond some "why's" about those posting 'theories'

I'm suggesting that, as I said above and as I have said repeatedly in this thread, before even trying to figure out a new theory, much less post it for others to see, you should put in the time and effort to learn what is currently known. If you haven't, it will be obvious, and will almost certainly result in nobody taking any interest in your idea.

I'm guessing the actual complaints likely come from those being censured in some way

We do get complaints from people whose posts have received warnings for violating the PF rules on personal theories and acceptable sources, yes. But we also get complaints that we allow too many personal theory posts to clutter up the forums and obscure content that has value.

The trick is to let people speak and if they don't contribute anything of value, they'll eventually get bored and not bother when no one responds nor censures them.

The problem is that, even if nobody responds to them, their posts are still there, adding noise to the forums and making it harder for people to find content that has value. That's why we have established rules about what is acceptable, and why we actively discourage posts outside those rules. People can always find other forums, or, as I said above, they can post on their own websites. It's not as though PF is the only place where people can post their theories.

not enough respect is granted to some of those people who actually DO put the time and effort into self-education with a clear understanding of the issues but get dismissed for their different ways of trying to communicate or, more often, to not conforming to some authoritative standards and 'etiquette' that those that who often go through the formal systems don't realize they possesses as what others may call, 'elitist'

Please give some specific examples. And be prepared to be disagreed with regarding whether the people in your examples really did have a "clear understanding of the issues".

Also, a general comment: much of your post is irrelevant to this discussion. PF can't solve problems with the formal education system or the scientific peer review system or the general attitude of society. Please try to focus on the specific points in the article, and on the specific venue of PF and its rules.

 

[houlahound]

Why not start a sub forum for outsider science, anybody can dump err publish their theories to be poked err critiqued...

 

[Drakkith]

Why not start a sub forum for outsider science, anybody can dump err publish their theories to be poked err critiqued...

PF already tried this a number of years ago. It doesn't work. We attracted crackpots to this subforum who didn't want to listen to criticism and then spilled over into the rest of the forums, where they spread their nonsense.

 

[houlahound]

The intertube is full of places for theories, let the crack pots have most of it ...and leave this one corner for reality based science.

 

[ZapperZ]

Why not start a sub forum for outsider science, anybody can dump err publish their theories to be poked err critiqued...

Been there, done that.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...y-forum-like-we-need-a-computer-virus.765736/

Zz.

 

[houlahound]

Before my time here, therefore it never happened...

 

[ZapperZ]

Before my time here, therefore it never happened...

So using that logic, you don't think fire has been discovered either.

Zz.

 

[houlahound]

Precisely ... thanks for validating my theory.

 

[Scott Mayers]

Others responding is a sign that they're interested. Others not responding is a sign that they're not. Obviously that's not the only factor involved, but I didn't claim in the article that it was.

Thank you. I wasn't sure if you were interpreting it this way. I disagree. Non-response occurs as much when more people simply agree too. Depending on the topic some will agree but not bother positing accolades. This is often a personality trait of the optimist who might feel it necessary to assert agreement and are ones who might favor things like, 'likes', in social media circles. For many, they just prefer to respond to what appears disagreeable. It would be interesting to do a study on how people might respond but would equally be biased depending on whether those doing the study are optimist or realists too!

I'm trying to explain why others are extremely likely not to be interested in theories put forward online in forums. I'm not sure how "justification" is relevant; everyone has to decide for themselves what they are interested in and how to spend their time.

This isn't the case though. I mentioned how there is a natural tendency for businesses to voluntarily 'conspire' defeating Adam Smith's justification for allowing a hands off favoritism of businesses based on the assumption that their 'demand' (interest of consumers) is always equally empowered to decide what is worthy of interest. What actually occurs favors businesses to 'get with the program' and voluntarily opt into methods that favor 'supply' side control. With relevance to this topic, people who have the power to operate forums, will tend to favor censoring, like one who owns a mall thinks they have a right to delimiting rules of their favor when presenting their business spaces as 'private' property even though they depend on 'public' access. As such, there IS less power of those supposed morons being assumed by innuendo who waste time attempting to publish their views in forums. It is also NOT true that people have ease of access and an equal competitive means to do things like start up their own blogs, gain interest to it, etc. Favor still will go to those with the power in some political sense.

I think you're mistaken about the primary reasons why papers are peer-reviewed before being published in most journals. The primary reason is that journals have reputations to maintain; publication is supposed to be a reliable indicator that the work is worth taking seriously. As for "publication" in the sense of posting on arxiv.org, that's different; no screening or refereeing is done for that, because, as you say, putting things up on the Internet is cheap. They do require some sort of institutional affiliation, though; but other sites such a vixra have sprung up to allow people to get around that as well.

"Reputation" is what matters and what arouses concern. And how is this valid except as an arbitrary practical consideration of what some set of people determine is politically worthy of attention based on popularity of those they personally favor over others for one reason or another?

If you can't get posted on one of the sites mentioned above, you can always put up your own website; that can be done for a few dollars a month. Then you can post whatever you want. The issue I was discussing in the article is not who is "allowed" to post; it is about the interest or lack thereof that others will have in what is posted.

Um, you do realize that in the article, I said explicitly that the assumption that only "professional scientists" can come up with valid theories is wrong, don't you? And that I also said explicitly that even scientists can't always be trusted to fairly represent science?

What I have said, though more in this discussion than in the article itself, is that, if the person presenting their theory, whether they are a scientist or not, has not put in the time and effort to understand what is already known, and to be able to explain, in the accepted standard language of the field in question, how their new theory does something that existing theories don't, then they aren't likely to get any interest from others. That's not because they're "not a scientist"; it's because they haven't put in the time and effort.

I was actually thinking of how I've noticed religious people apologizing for some belief in their sacred sources. One common response to why one would place trust in the bible based on what the bible itself asserts is or is not true. Saying that the bible is authored by God, for instance, is deemed 'provable' by those of their particular religion if only one should INVEST the time in actually reading it. It reverses the burden on others to expect they should be the ones to first do their homework. It's also a reason why some team of lawyers in a court or politicians in legislation would opt to 'burden' their opponents with so much paperwork that it begs others to hopefully stop trying to question their authority or just 'pick a side' based on emotions alone. These tactics are as much relevant here when considering who is or is not worthy of being listened to. I'd rather caution on the side of assuming nothing about particular declarations of those proposing theories if only to demonstrate the sincerity of those running forums appealing to truth as not themselves biased in some way. I'm a bit surprised at how many forums of science default to commanding no one question specific theories in a similar way. If public forums themselves are venues only to 'sell' their own ideas, like malls representing public spaces are presented as actually 'private' spaces, their tendency will be to foster those businesses within them irrelevant to the actual public's interest except in appearances. I'm discovering that while 'science' is supposed to be something we ALL own publicly, in practice, this is defeated by those demanding others to accept that what is 'supplied' as representing what people actually want and value as 'truth', and not what people 'demand' in their understanding.

For someone who is familiar with a field, it's pretty easy to tell even from a single post whether a person proposing a new theory in that field understands the field. Whether or not anyone else has responded to the post is irrelevant in making that determination.

No, it tells you what kind of socially common etiquette they share with you. If one goes through the same kind of institutions learning similar vocabulary and expected means of communicating, those who are outsiders doing it with their own drive will inevitably lack the same etiquette. But this becomes the arbiter that discriminates those who may have virtue in their words but can't compete simply for not affording the luxury of education with the same standards. It should be noted though that for those that 'volunteer' to assert theories, they have a more likely virtuous quality of being self-derived, self-motivated, thinkers rather than automatons who've learned what is true based on their ability to demonstrate conformity or to things like their capacity to maintain a lot of data in their heads without necessarily being able to logically draw their own actual conclusions.

And the act of constructing theories to explain observations. Does anyone really believe that theories aren't part of science?

Yes. Theories are often artistic in that they depend on intuition with more significance and ones capacity to argue in some consistent logic, not simply one's skill at referencing others or demonstrating good clerical skills of the vast majority of scientists. Your (a) example was of what IS most of science, true. But this is mostly of those who ARE most clerical and able to be strict to their methods. These are the majority and are Tycho Brahe personalities who are important to science but tend to lack the logical acuity of those like Kepler, who's like your (b) examples and have a better skill at bringing the efforts of the practical scientists into philosophy. But those like Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, ARE more philosophers than they are scientists even while dependent upon those anal types to provide the muscle of science. But because the vast majority ARE of the (a) types, they also tend to dominate the whole of science in ways that often make them favor an elitist kind of preference by others to respect their 'authority'. Truth is NOT a democracy though. I can have compassion and understanding of this but we need to also accept the philosopher types who often appear odd or unusual. Even if many are as potentially flaky, their ideas should not be censored when unnecessary as it is for forums now.

You really need to learn more about how science is actually done.

Tycho Brahe style? Kepler style? There is a lot of divergent views on this and just because you may be on the popular side of your own preference of how it should be done, it is not so black and white. If science should be more strictly anal like Brahe, then I say "shut up and drive" (stick to observing, not pretending that this implies one is good at connecting things with logical skill). I prefer to allow science to be a function of philosophy but don't believe that most scientists know the distinction or care.

I'm not sure what this means. But it raises an obvious question: how much time and effort have you put into learning about QM and relativity?

If you're asking for my actual intellectual capacity on these, I'm very well invested and continue to. But I feel burdened to have to 'read the Bible' and begged to use the same kind of lingo to appeal to those who can't notice the problems between them and related issues. They are more about the politics (including economics) and are evolving into a new priestly caste by a large majority because they are composed of a majority of those (a) type of 'science' you reference. [Tycho Brahe types]

I'm suggesting that, as I said above and as I have said repeatedly in this thread, before even trying to figure out a new theory, much less post it for others to see, you should put in the time and effort to learn what is currently known. If you haven't, it will be obvious, and will almost certainly result in nobody taking any interest in your idea.

We do get complaints from people whose posts have received warnings for violating the PF rules on personal theories and acceptable sources, yes. But we also get complaints that we allow too many personal theory posts to clutter up the forums and obscure content that has value.The problem is that, even if nobody responds to them, their posts are still there, adding noise to the forums and making it harder for people to find content that has value. That's why we have established rules about what is acceptable, and why we actively discourage posts outside those rules. People can always find other forums, or, as I said above, they can post on their own websites. It's not as though PF is the only place where people can post their theories.

People don't admire the 'clutter' of our waste and think it alright to do whatever it takes to simply hide it. This was and IS appealing. But now we've realized that our landfills and sewage, among other environmental junk, are also creating more problems as people easily dismiss this pollution in causes environmentally without thinking about means to recycle or try to seek advantage of the stuff we toss away indiscriminately. Both extremes are bad. But we have to begin to recognize the reality of both and respect that BOTH are of equal force. We have to watch what we eat AND what we dang even though it seems easy only to think of favoring what we eat.

You are appearing to be optimistic by assuming there are others elsewhere. This is like the more conservative-bent economist thinking that what is 'free' to choose in principle is all that proves we have 'freedom'. I am 'free' to buy a Cadillac, for instance, in this type of thinking. I am told that only my own WILL determines whether I could actually achieve such an expensive vehicle as if my inability is merely just something of fault with my personal character instead. But reality is actually optimized to favor those who already HAVE initial sufficient fortunes that grant them real choices. And they falsely interpret their own capacity to receive what they want as 'proof' that ALL people have the same freedom.

It is NOT the case to assert that there are 'other places' to go. Even where there are, like some potential free blog one could set up, they realistically get even less notice as they blur into piles of garbage in some landfill with scavenger birds everywhere hiding what potential trophies one might discover their. Its a lose-lose for those 'theorists'. We need to recognize the virtue of being patient with those we think are trash and opt to recycle the values they hold in them rather than continue to discriminate against them. You'd be surprised how they might BECOME valuable later on.

Please give some specific examples. And be prepared to be disagreed with regarding whether the people in your examples really did have a "clear understanding of the issues".

Also, a general comment: much of your post is irrelevant to this discussion. PF can't solve problems with the formal education system or the scientific peer review system or the general attitude of society. Please try to focus on the specific points in the article, and on the specific venue of PF and its rules.

I think I've done this here with more clarity and apologize if it appears to digress. I think it still relevant even if I digress a bit. I don't disagree with your essay in total and so can only try to argue what I DO disagree with. At least this isn't 'junk' for some of us liking the depth. Most prefer Twitter-like short responses because it easily fits on to their iPhone screens and trying to scroll past long threads gets annoying for them given their hectic multitasking lifestyles. I hope you are as much entertained as I am to discuss this with you with sincerity to seek solutions. To me, THIS IS as much 'theoretical science' being practiced; but it is "Kepler-like", something that needs no novel experiment with prophesy to make it more valid and functional.

 

[Vanadium 50]

. But I feel burdened to have to 'read the Bible' and begged to use the same kind of lingo to appeal to those who can't notice the problems between them and related issues. .

So you find it a burden put in the work to learn the material before criticizing it, and you find it a burden to listen to what the experts say - i.e. having an actual two-way dialog. And yet it's the scientists who are arrogant.

 

[PeterDonis]

@Scott Mayers, a general comment: your posts are getting longer, but much of what you are saying is still irrelevant to this discussion. Please keep to the point. PF also has a rule about hijacking threads. I'm going to respond to the few things that are relevant. Please limit your discussion accordingly.

Non-response occurs as much when more people simply agree too.

Sure, that's possible in general. But I think it's extremely unlikely in the specific scenario we're talking about--where, hypothetically, someone has just posted a new theory that claims to explain something that current theories don't. If the new theory actually looks worth considering, people who think that aren't likely to just stay silent.

how is this valid except as an arbitrary practical consideration of what some set of people determine is politically worthy of attention based on popularity of those they personally favor over others for one reason or another?

The criterion being used to determine what is worthy of attention is not "arbitrary". I have already given the key criterion: for your idea to be worthy of attention, you have to demonstrate that you have put in the time and effort to understand what is already known, and can explain how your new idea explains something that existing theories don't. Your only response to this is, basically, "I don't want to". Sorry, but I don't care.

I'm a bit surprised at how many forums of science default to commanding no one question specific theories in a similar way.

If you think PF is doing this, you are seriously misunderstanding the rules. We aren't telling you not to question specific theories. We are telling you how to question specific theories: by first understanding them, and being able to demonstrate your understanding.

Theories are often artistic

Science is an art. That's why the analogy with other arts--such as the concert pianist comment I made--is apt. Nobody would expect to be taken seriously as a concert pianist without having taken the time and effort to learn how to play the piano and develop an understanding of music. Similarly, nobody should expect to be taken seriously as a proposer of new theories without having taken the time and effort to learn how to construct theories and develop an understanding of the theories we already have.

If you're asking for my actual intellectual capacity on these, I'm very well invested and continue to.

I asked you how much time and effort you have put in. This does not answer that question. I'm looking for something along the lines of "I've spent X number of years studying QM and relativity. I have worked through textbooks A, B, and C. I have taken courses D, E, and F." And so on. Just a statement that "I'm very well invested" is meaningless; that's your personal opinion, but how do I know your opinion is worth anything?

If you absolutely refuse to give more details about what time and effort you've put into understand QM and relativity, you have an alternative: you could demonstrate to me directly that you understand QM and relativity. For example, you could clarify what you meant by the statement I responded to in my last post, the one I said I wasn't sure what it meant--by "clarified" I mean "restate in terms that someone familiar with QM and relativity would understand".

I think I've done this here with more clarity

You have given no specific examples of what I asked for: people who had a new idea that really was worth considering, and, according to you, demonstrated a "clear understanding" of existing theories, but nevertheless got shut down in a PF discussion instead of being heard. Can you give any?

 

[PeterDonis]

If you're asking for my actual intellectual capacity on these, I'm very well invested and continue to.

how do I know your opinion is worth anything?

Perhaps I should expand on this a little. A recurrent theme in your posts is that you see problems with the way science is done--scientists are too unwilling to consider new ideas, too quick to shut down discussion, too quick to accept a theory if it's proposed by a person with the right reputation, etc. These are your opinions, but again: how do I know your opinions are worth anything? Basically, you're giving an example of what I'm talking about: you're proposing a "new theory" about how science should be done, but you haven't demonstrated that you understand the current "theory"--the way science is currently done. In fact, it seems to me from what you're saying that you don't understand how science is currently done. So why should I pay any attention to your opinions about how it should be done?

(Also please bear in mind that PF's purpose is not to "do" science, but to discuss science that's already been done. Part of that discussion can also be about how science is done, but in the end, as I've said before, PF is not the place to propose new theories.)

 

[Mr Matthew Briggs]

PeterDonis submitted a new PF Insights post

Why Won't You Look at My New Theory?

Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.

From the point of a psychologist, there are a few cognitive biases that come into play also, firstly is the confirmation bias. We tend to seek information that confirms what we already know, it is called preferential attachment, a principle,

[Moderator's note: edited to delete off topic content.]

 

[sophiecentaur]

we're all born equal,

I don't think so. You can always quote an exception to the general trend but there is a big chunk of 'nature' in the 'nature and nurture' thing.
I don't see what the problem is in accepting that people are all different. I do know that pressuring kids to do well, academically, when they are struggling hard to keep up can be very counter productive. You couldn't hope to make all kids good at everything - just to give them the option of brilliant performance in something later in their lives. What people don;t seem to realize is that, if you tell kids they can succeed in anything if they only try hard enough and they fail, they brand themselves as a failure. We are talking about Education ( in the broad sense) here and part of a good education is to give people the ability to realize their capabilities and an ability to accept limitations. Life is a pyramid and the point is at the top. However egalitarian we may want to be, we can never change that. All we can do is to try to ensure that the 'nurture' part is made as good as possible for all. We have some way to go there.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Einstein was a crackpot outsider

No, he wasn't. He had a PhD at the time of his annus mirtabilis papers, and was a professor of physics when he developed GR.

Knowledge is for everyone, not just those who had the patience to spend 10 years educating themselves.

Sorry, but that's not how the universe works. It would be nice if knowledge could be magically poured into our heads. but it takes, as you say, time and patience.

I think it's time to refer everyone to Steve Dutch's great essay on https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/SelfApptdExp.htm.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The main point in this thread is about people who think they can achieve something great without putting in the work.

This doesn't seem to have been appreciated by several contributors. They seem to have assumed an implied criticism and several of the posts have been a bit needlessly 'defensive'. I don't think there have actually been any posts from the people that the post is actually criticising.

 

[Borg]

I don't think there have actually been any posts from the people that the post is actually criticising.

Well, they do tend to get banned.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think it's time to refer everyone to Steve Dutch's great essay on https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/SelfApptdExp.htm.

I just love that reference. It's a Nuclear Option that should be used more often here - perhaps available as an extra button on the short cut menu - haha.

 

[Borg]

I think it's time to refer everyone to Steve Dutch's great essay on https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/SelfApptdExp.htm.

@Greg Bernhardt really needs a "Love" button that counts as 5 Likes.

 

[ZapperZ]

One my favourite quotes is that "if you cannot explain it to a 6 year old, you do not understand it yourself" I never tire of it, if it cannot be explained outside the context of itself then it is futile, Feynman had a similar stance.

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/02/if-you-cant-explain-it-to-your.html

I also find it hilarious that you accused someone else of making an "oversimplification", when that is ALL that you've been doing on here.

Zz.

 

[sophiecentaur]

One my favourite quotes is that "if you cannot explain it to a 6 year old, you do not understand it yourself" I never tire of it,

But that doesn't mean a six year old would understand as much as you, after you have explained it to them. It actually means that you need a massive overview of any subject that you claim to be an expert in - massive enough to provide a valid data-reduced version which cannot be mis-understood.
If people "lose interest" because their Maths is inadequate then that is up to them. It doesn't necessarily signify any great loss to them or to the World - they just need to learn acceptance of it. Academia can hardly be held responsible for when people are upset 'cos it's too hard. Yes, some of it is very very hard and non-experts should acknowledge that (I certainly do).

 

[sophiecentaur]

Well, they do tend to get banned.

HAHA yes - but I meant Posts on this particular thread.

 

[houlahound]

Imagine how much work would get done if every professional researcher had to sit down with every random shmo and explain to them why their theory suckedazz.

 

[anorlunda]

Touché, though I would argue there may well be some asymmetry to that dialogue, rightly so, we have a tendency to judge the world by our own horizons and as such believe everyone knows more or less what we do, it is extremely frustrating spoon feeding information.

It is a difficult case because it is an exception to the normal standards of egalitarianism. In everyday life (I like to think of a political town meeting in my state of Vermont), we are taught to treat everyone with respect as peers. It is an American ideal.

In the case of scientific forums, the scientists are frustrated and weary of the burden of having to point out why so many people's ideas about science are not valid. With more effort, the idea holders could learn by themselves why their idea is not good, but they would rather put the burden on scientists to disprove it over and over and over again. That's unfair, and reaction to that unfairness is what I believe the Insights article is about. The scientists have ample justification for rejecting egalitarianism in scientific discussions. As PeterDonis said, people with pet theories should carry the burden of putting in the effort of digging deeper before sharing the theories with others.

On the other hand, the line between the scientist's frustration and elitism is very thin. Elitism is strongly discouraged in the USA. Navigating that thin line is especially difficult when scientific and general topics are mixed. PF has both scientific and general discussion forums. IMO, very different norms of etiquette (i.e. who is qualified to have a valid opinion) should apply in general discussion, yet the same people hop back and forth between both kinds of forums frequently, making it difficult for everyone to keep a double standard in mind.

PF also has engineering forums which are halfway between science forums and general discussion. Engineers have skills at problem solving, and finding the best way to do things. But in many cases, the topics should be judged on a sliding scale of better/worse opinions rather than binary choice valid/invalid theories. Engineers may be more skilled than laymen (and scientists) at finding better ways to do stuff, but they don't claim a monopoly on it. IMO, two of the best engineers of the 20th century had no engineering education. They were Charles Concordia (who had only a high school education) and Enrico Fermi (who was a physicist).

 

[PeterDonis]

Elitism is strongly discouraged in the USA.

Elitism in the sense of people having privileges that they haven't earned, yes. But even if we allow that scientists' grasp of their fields is a "privilege", it's one that they have earned, so the charge of "elitism" doesn't apply.

In fact, having to earn your position, in any field, used to be strongly encouraged in the USA. I'm not so sure it is now, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

[PeterDonis]

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/02/if-you-cant-explain-it-to-your.html

Nice article!

Another good counterexample would be a story that Kip Thorne relates in Black Holes and Time Warps. Oppenheimer had just started teaching as a professor at Caltech, and gave his first lecture. It was, as Thorne describes it, a "tour de force", covering multiple subjects and obviously showing a deep mastery of physics. But it did have one flaw. After the lecture was over and the students had left, Richard Tolman, who had sat in, told Oppenheimer, "Well, Robert, that was beautiful but I didn't understand a damned word."

 

[anorlunda]

Elitism in the sense of people having privileges that they haven't earned

That's one definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism gives three definitions. I was thinking of #1, and you are thinking of #3.

1. Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
2. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. Oppositions of elitism include anti-elitism, egalitarianism, populism and political theory ofpluralism. Elite theory is the sociological or political science analysis of elite influence in society: elite theorists regard pluralism as a utopian ideal.
3. 'Elitism' also refers to situations in which an individual assumes special 'privileges' and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves.

Note that I didn't accuse you of elitism. I said:

On the other hand, the line between the scientist's frustration and elitism is very thin.

 

[PeterDonis]

I didn't accuse you of elitism.

Yes, I know. I was responding to your statement that elitism is strongly discouraged in the USA. You're right that I was using that term in the third sense you gave.

The first definition, though, is the more interesting one. I think you were saying that elitism in this sense is also discouraged in the USA, and I think that's the case to an extent. But as I said before, earning your position is (or at least used to be) encouraged in the USA, and that kind of looks like encouraging elitism in the first sense. So I think the overall US attitude here is ambivalent.

 

[Drakkith]

That's one definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism gives three definitions. I was thinking of #1, and you are thinking of #3.

I'm not sure I think elitism applies here. From wiki's article on elite (linked to in your first definition): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite

Elite, sometimes "Élite" is a small group of powerful people in political and sociological theory, such as an oligarchy, that controls a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power in society. This group holds a superior position among the ordinary people and exercises greater privilege than the rest of the population.

From a brief reading of this article I don't think the term applies to scientists in general, as most of the people considered "elites" (at least here in the US) are political leaders, military leaders, or corporate owners. Additionally, the term appears to be used in the sense of "people who govern" or have vastly disproportionate social or economic privileges. Seeing as how scientists come from all walks of life, from many different institutions, and rarely have any power outside of terrorizing their grad students, I don't think any of the three uses of elitism apply.

However, my knowledge of all of this is extremely rudimentary, so I could be talking out of an orifice that would probably be censored if I were to say it.

 

[Scott Mayers]

So you find it a burden put in the work to learn the material before criticizing it, and you find it a burden to listen to what the experts say - i.e. having an actual two-way dialog. And yet it's the scientists who are arrogant.

Who says I personally haven't? The 'burden' though when people GO to forums should be on par with each other in respect. That is, unless a site is intended to dictate and not have open dialogue, authority is itself moot. The point of open discussion is to both share one's views and participate with each other to learn. And so the same can be said of those who also assert 'authority' here: if one is supposedly intelligent or qualified, they must defend themselves within the present argument rather than diverting others to go elsewhere to do their 'homework'.

I know what I know and can defend it. But I find it odd and absurdly presumptuous that anyone even with the best credentials via some institute should expect they aren't burdened equally to prove what they know in context of a discussion in practice if only to prove their worth. Assuming anyone go elsewhere is of the disturbing kind I equated with those religious apologists to demand one read the Bible first in order to qualify speaking of it. But the very investment requires as much justification as the OPs claim of why others DON'T read someone's theories, whether they be potentially worthy or not...PRACTICALITY!

The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else's 'formal' credentials. Do you follow?

 

[mfb]

I know what I know and can defend it.

Then publish it.
It is that easy.

 

[Isaac0427]

The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else's 'formal' credentials. Do you follow?

No good scientist puts faith in any theory before understanding it and it's proofs. No good scientist, however, is spectical of a theory before understanding it and its proofs. You need to learn something before judging it. And by learn it, I mean know the proofs used to prove that it is accurate. If you can't mathematically criticize the proof, you can't criticize the theory (without an experiment). The problem we are talking about here is the fact that people undermine a theory that they claim is incomplete or straight out incorrect without pointing out valid flaws in the theory and/or the proofs of the theory.

 

[Scott Mayers]

No good scientist puts faith in any theory before understanding it and it's proofs. No good scientist, however, is spectical of a theory before understanding it and its proofs. You need to learn something before judging it. And by learn it, I mean know the proofs used to prove that it is accurate. If you can't mathematically criticize the proof, you can't criticize the theory (without an experiment). The problem we are talking about here is the fact that people undermine a theory that they claim is incomplete or straight out incorrect without pointing out valid flaws in the theory and/or the proofs of the theory.

No, actually I've experimented with this very assumption. Even supposedly intellectual people are flawed to default to emotional/political biases. A bad title for a thread or a paper, is enough for a 'referee' or moderator to eliminate without reading it themselves.

What I think is severely NOT appropriately understood is that just because someone is potentially a non-scientist with potential radical ideas, they are not always as stupid to already know that 'homework' is a good thing. (It's why those religious apologists ask that others invest the effort to read their scriptures first with EQUAL validity) It treats these people by default as idiots instead of reversing the role to presume them 'innocent' up front. The question should be why some 'outsider' should not be privileged to their own skepticism and/or posit some novel idea even if they could be mistaken without being insulted by others' expectations of them to be inadequately prepared or insufficiently qualified up front. The act of people erring is precisely a function of processes in intellectual activity. But disrespecting the 'guest' only motivates them to close off their own trust in those insulting them with GOOD reason: they have an actual 'scientific' experience (as an 'experiment') that demonstrates the hypocrisy of some to feign authority on the skill of being 'scientific', but proving they may not, when they demand authoritative blind respect (Faith) and/or redirection to other sources first (like demanding one read another's sacred texts)! To show credibility only requires being willing participants in the process of learning with the respect towards them they'd hope could be reflected by their own example.

 

[Drakkith]

The 'burden' though when people GO to forums should be on par with each other in respect.

That burden is not shared equally between both parties. That is one of the main problems. Experience here at PF has given us overwhelming evidence that, in the context of the topic of this thread, the burden is usually placed almost entirely in the lap of the scientist.

That is, unless a site is intended to dictate and not have open dialogue, authority is itself moot. The point of open discussion is to both share one's views and participate with each other to learn.

If you want to discuss PF itself, then all you need to do is read the first rule on the Terms and Rules page:

We wish to discuss mainstream science.That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.

PF itself is NOT a forum to discuss anything and everything with no regard to authority. It is NOT a place for the equal sharing of ideas between those who know science and those who don't, just like a forum on RC Racing is not a place for me to go and expect my novice ideas to be given equal weight to those more experienced than I (LiPo batteries inferior to NiMH?). The fact that we wish to discuss mainstream science requires that we confine ourselves to using other sources as references, and since mainstream science is so overwhelmingly complex, that requires that we occasionally have to use an "argument from authority," in a logically valid way as rational wiki puts it:

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of logical arguments:

A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue.

A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

And so the same can be said of those who also assert 'authority' here: if one is supposedly intelligent or qualified, they must defend themselves within the present argument rather than diverting others to go elsewhere to do their 'homework'.

Except that the average person doesn't know enough to even understand any "defense", let alone construct a valid criticism of any topic in modern science. It's like me criticizing a professional quarterback (a position in american football if you aren't from the US) despite knowing next to nothing about the position or the game beyond what I remember from playing it as a kid.

In any case, this is rarely a problem for the average poster here at PF unless they are asking a question with a very complicated answer and have little knowledge of the topic. I mean, if you're asking about the complex conjugate root theorem despite not even knowing what an imaginary number is, then there's little help that other posters can give you since it would usually require several undergrad math classes just to cover the basic topics you need to know in order to understand the theorem.

I know what I know and can defend it. But I find it odd and absurdly presumptuous that anyone even with the best credentials via some institute should expect they aren't burdened equally to prove what they know in context of a discussion in practice if only to prove their worth.

Then it appears you've never had to explain something very complicated and abstract to someone else who knows nothing about it. Especially to someone who's already skeptical of it.

Assuming anyone go elsewhere is of the disturbing kind I equated with those religious apologists to demand one read the Bible first in order to qualify speaking of it.

Well, if you're going to speak on the subject matter of any book, including the Bible, it tends to help if you've actually read it. And if you haven't, then you should probably read an extensive number of reviews or cliff-notes, just to ensure you aren't getting biased information. And if you're not going to do that, then you should probably at least listen to a number of people who have given the book several in-depth reads and possesses the required skills to understand and explain it through several different viewpoints and contexts. And if not that, then I'd recommend at least take a class where you discuss various excerpts of the book, what context they were written under, and how they may or may not apply to today's society. If you haven't done any of the above, it's probably better for you to just listen when someone talks about it rather than to speak on it (except where said subject matter or related subject matter can also be studied in other books. In which you should probably have done one of the above about this other book).

But the very investment requires as much justification as the OPs claim of why others DON'T read someone's theories, whether they be potentially worthy or not...PRACTICALITY!

Indeed. It requires a substantial investment of time and effort to understand the details of any subject or topic, including science. Which is why when I ask someone about a topic I know next to nothing about, I don't expect my involvement to be anything more than asking a number of questions which only an occasional equal discourse if we reach something I am familiar with. But that's if I actually want to learn about the topic, of course. If I don't, well, I'd probably make false accusations based on my rudimentary understanding of the topic and then berate the other person when I can't understand what they've said. Or if I don't believe them. Or if I disagree with them. Or if they make any criticism of my own ideas. (all of which happen frequently here at PF)

The expectation of one to BE of good scientific mind is one understood to be sufficiently skeptical, not blindly willing to GAMBLE (have faith) in someone else's 'formal' credentials. Do you follow?

I can't speak for V50, but I certainly don't follow. I don't feel that you've adequately looked into this topic nor do I feel that you've presented a valid, logical argument that should be taken seriously by anyone.

 

[Drakkith]

No, actually I've experimented with this very assumption. Even supposedly intellectual people are flawed to default to emotional/political biases. A bad title for a thread or a paper, is enough for a 'referee' or moderator to eliminate without reading it themselves.

Well, a bad title is a hallmark sign of a bad paper. One doesn't submit a paper to Nature entitled, "Stuff Electrons Do" if one actually wants to be taken seriously. I don't consider this a political or an emotional bias.

What I think is severely NOT appropriately understood is that just because someone is potentially a non-scientist with potential radical ideas, they are not always as stupid to already know that 'homework' is a good thing.

Unfortunately the evidence is against you. This is absolutely the case for almost every single instance of a personal theory I've ever dealt with or seen here at PF and I'm confident the other mentors share similar experiences to my own.

The question should be why some 'outsider' should not be privileged to their own skepticism and/or posit some novel idea even if they could be mistaken without being insulted by others' expectations of them to be inadequately prepared or insufficiently qualified up front.

That has already been answered, abundantly, in this thread. Please make more of an effort to actually read the thread and to understand it instead of continually bringing up the same question that has already been answered.

The act of people erring is precisely a function of processes in intellectual activity. But disrespecting the 'guest' only motivates them to close off their own trust in those insulting them with GOOD reason: they have an actual 'scientific' experience (as an 'experiment') that demonstrates the hypocrisy of some to feign authority on the skill of being 'scientific', but proving they may not, when they demand authoritative blind respect (Faith) and/or redirection to other sources first (like demanding one read another's sacred texts)! To show credibility only requires being willing participants in the process of learning with the respect towards them they'd hope could be reflected by their own example.

It appears you have no experience in dealing with people who have personal theories then. Or with science. Or with "sacred texts". In fact, I find literally everything you've written in this thread to be so convoluted and unchained from reality that I don't feel you have any idea what you're talking about. At all.

 

[Borg]

Whether intentional or not, this thread has been a real honeypot this week. Life imitates art...

 

[F X]

What's the relationship between this comment thread and the forum thread?

edit> never mind. I figured it out by experiment.

 

[F X]

I received an email with a link to this topic. The headline was/is

Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community
Fascinating Science Discussions from Last Week

I read the article, then I read some of the topic, trying to decide if I should respond. I came across the following

Well, if you're going to speak on the subject matter of any book, including the Bible, it tends to help if you've actually read it.

Several things came to mind. First, this topic is under GENERAL PHYSICS but does not appear to be a physics topic at all. It's either psychology or forum rules or philosophy, talking about science and human nature, but not physics. (That's just my observation, I have no peer reviewed sources published in mainstream journals to support it, it's just my observation of the topic so far)

Second, I don't need to read anything about the Bible, or some cult or new movement that postulates ideas or behaviors that violate the laws of physics, or common sense, before I can comment on the movement, it's literature or it's followers. If somebody claims they can channel spirits and predict the future, I am under no obligation of any kind to read their "2000 page holy mantra channeled literature" to debunk them in a general sense. Same for any other spiritual or religious movement.

That's not physics? That was my first point.

Third, the article states "Here at PF we have rules about this", but there is no link to the source. Where are the rules about new theories? I didn't even know there was such a rule. Much less rules about it. See my first point.

Fourth, I was wondering about the comments on the article page and here, so I posted, answering that question. The two are the same.

Fifth, and most important.

the more general question of why there is apparently so little interest in such personal theories, independently of whatever rules a particular forum might have

My experience with "personal theories" is very limited, since as you say, interest is very little. However, the one that caught my attention 8 years ago is still being discussed (argued as well), and turned out to be a correct theory, with experiments and evidence to back it up. It's one of the most fascinating things, and it all happened online in forums. The places that had rules and didn't allow discussions to develop (for whatever reasons) all ended up missing out.

This certainly doesn't mean anything other than what I just stated. Most new things are crackpots, but that does not mean every new thing is a crackpot idea. Just by the nature of things, a new idea will usually sound crazy, all the more so to any expert in a field. That doesn't mean it is.

Time and time again we see in the history of science that almost every new idea that actually was a new idea, is dismissed, attacked, mocked or just ignored. This is the paradigm changing ones, not your ordinary iPhone or Facebook idea. Billion dollar ideas of course are also mocked or ignored, but the inventor often has the satisfaction of laughing all the way to the bank. YouTube comes to mind.

Back to the question of "why we don't care about your crackpot idea" .

It's that for every really good idea, theory or inspiration, there are just so many that are TimeCube level, or worse, wrong in ways that are time consuming to explain, and even then you won't understand why you are wrong.

 

[jbriggs444]

Third, the article states "Here at PF we have rules about this", but there is no link to the source. Where are the rules about new theories? I didn't even know there was such a rule. Much less rules about it. See my first point.

The rules are required reading when you first join the forums.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

"
Non-mainstream theories:
Generally, in the forums we do not allow the following:

• Discussion of theories that appear only on personal web sites, self-published books, etc.
• Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion
• Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context
• Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science
• Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.
• Philosophical discussions are permitted only at the discretion of the mentors and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal

 

[mfb]

Second, I don't need to read anything about the Bible, or some cult or new movement that postulates ideas or behaviors that violate the laws of physics, or common sense, before I can comment on the movement, it's literature or it's followers. If somebody claims they can channel spirits and predict the future, I am under no obligation of any kind to read their "2000 page holy mantra channeled literature" to debunk them in a general sense. Same for any other spiritual or religious movement.

There is a huge difference between "speaking about the bible" and "speaking about claims made in the bible". The first one is about the origin of the book, how the stories there emerged and got propagated until they were written down, and so on. To discuss this, it is really useful to read the bible, or literature about the bible. Otherwise you cannot follow discussions about it. The second thing is about claims made in the bible. You don't need to read the bible to discuss the plausibility of Jesus walking over water, of course. Although it helps to know how the bible was put together to discuss how that description in the book could have emerged.

It's that for every really good idea, theory or inspiration, there are just so many that are TimeCube level, or worse, wrong in ways that are time consuming to explain, and even then you won't understand why you are wrong.

Without expertise in the field, everything will be at Timecube level.

 

[PeterDonis]

the one that caught my attention 8 years ago is still being discussed (argued as well), and turned out to be a correct theory, with experiments and evidence to back it up.

Are you saying that a valid new scientific theory was discovered purely by forum posts? Please give specifics.

 

[russ_watters]

My experience with "personal theories" is very limited, since as you say, interest is very little. However, the one that caught my attention 8 years ago is still being discussed (argued as well), and turned out to be a correct theory, with experiments and evidence to back it up. It's one of the most fascinating things, and it all happened online in forums. The places that had rules and didn't allow discussions to develop (for whatever reasons) all ended up missing out.

What theory is that? If true, that would probably be the first time that's ever happened.

My curiosity aside, we're ok with that, for the same reason I don't regularly play the lottery. Our time and effort are better spent elsewhere and the guarantee of doing some good every single day is more appealing to us than the extraordinarily tiny possibility of doing something amazing once, ever (while wasting much of the rest of our time here).

 

[Nugatory]

Several things came to mind. First, this topic is under GENERAL PHYSICS but does not appear to be a physics topic at all. It's either psychology or forum rules or philosophy, talking about science and human nature, but not physics. (That's just my observation, I have no peer reviewed sources published in mainstream journals to support it, it's just my observation of the topic so far)

We don't maintain a separate subsection for discussions of how the scientific process operates, so discussions on that topic are often are placed in "General Physics" (unless they are about a poster's specific situation, in which case Academic Guidance or Career Guidance may be more appropriate). That is the case with this Insights article.

Of course no topic exists in a vacuum, so the insights article provokes discussion over more ground than the article itself covers. Science has institutional defences against crackpots making uninformed claims of having discovered revolutionary new ground-breaking ideas - but then we ask why there are so many of these that the defences are needed, and there's an element of psychology in that question. The forum rules, including the prohibition on personal theories and the requirement for published support, leverage these defences - but then anyone who is unhappy with the way the defences operate is also going to be unhappy with the forum rules so they get pulled into the discussion.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Time and time again we see in the history of science that almost every new idea that actually was a new idea, is dismissed, attacked, mocked or just ignored. This is the paradigm changing ones, not your ordinary iPhone or Facebook idea. Billion dollar ideas of course are also mocked or ignored, but the inventor often has the satisfaction of laughing all the way to the bank. YouTube comes to mind.
...

Ah! Hahahaha!
Yes. Along with YouTube, there is Google, Facebook, and Physics Forums.
I wouldn't call the creation of these entities "groundbreaking" technologies.
YouTube is just a place to put videos. I had a web page 20 years ago, and people could have put videos there.
Google was preceded by a myriad of "search engine" sites.
I still don't know why Facebook displaced MySpace.
And of course, Physics Forums was merely another forum.

So why did these ideas become so successful?
Two words; "Business Model".

The two previous sciencey forums I belonged to, no longer exist.
Why? Bad business models, IMHO.

So why is Physics Forums still around after umteen years?
IMHO, it's because of the basic forum rules, which do not allow people to waste my time, nor anyone else's, with nonsense, which even they don't understand.

ps. I came up with a TRILLION dollar idea about 5 years ago, but have never once discussed it here. I'm simply going to patent it. So yes, I, and a select few here at the forum, will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[indimingo]

One thing that you've not incorporated into your insight is this, quite important and very valid point. Incorrect/unlikely theories that people come-up with and post in a place like this forum, regardless of how many flaws they might be seemingly obviously be riddled-with, inspire the wise scientist to find a whole host of previously never-considered perspectives that may point them in a wonderful new direction! Sometime, the wilder the concocted theory (actually 'hypothesis' would be more appropriate) is, the more the 'imaginative-juices' start to flow! For this reason alone, I can very much appreciate some of the weird things people come up with, relative to mainstream science, or even SOMETHING that reasonably approaches it!.

Another way that it can be "productive", is when people look past the pseudoscientific ideas as something worth just their face-value, and take the time to explain/teach the person the 'whys' and 'whats' of their flaw(s). Hopefully some people can accept what the problems are once they see them and/or understand them - although I realize very few truly do so! That's just a bonus, but, the truly productive energy is gained by the one who tries to present sound/valid arguments to explain the errors in such a way that they, theoretically, could understand it! To go over it several times and from several different approaches, while remaining cool and not getting frustrated and just throwing their hands up in the air and walking away! That improves one's teaching skills, true, but even most critically important, it reinforces the scientific concepts they use to 'teach' someone far more deeply into the wiring of their brain! Using everything you can to try to talk someone out of their idea is a profoundly difficult challenge to accept - but the end-result is marginally as important than realizing that it's through teaching that we learn the most. So I say they are simply free lunch for the mind!

The downside is obviously 'clutter' and a need for extensive moderation to quickly separate them if/when possible...But it's a small price to pay if you take what I've said at all seriously.

 

[phinds]

One thing that you've not incorporated into your insight is this, quite important and very valid point. Incorrect/unlikely theories that people come-up with and post in a place like this forum, regardless of how many flaws they might be seemingly obviously be riddled-with, inspire the wise scientist to find a whole host of previously never-considered perspectives that may point them in a wonderful new direction!

And, as I pointed out to you in another thread, that is not the purpose of this forum.

 

[PeterDonis]

Incorrect/unlikely theories that people come-up with and post in a place like this forum, regardless of how many flaws they might be seemingly obviously be riddled-with, inspire the wise scientist to find a whole host of previously never-considered perspectives that may point them in a wonderful new direction!

Can you give any actual examples of this happening? I strongly suspect that you can't; and that would underscore a key reason for PF's policy of not allowing discussion of personal theories--there's no value even in debunking them.

Hopefully some people can accept what the problems are once they see them and/or understand them - although I realize very few truly do so!

Exactly; which means that this kind of investment in pedagogy is highly unlikely to lead to anything of value.

it's a small price to pay

All past experience here on PF indicates that it is emphatically not a small price to pay--all the more so as it produces no real benefit anyway.

 

[indimingo]

And, as I pointed out to you in another thread, that is not the purpose of this forum.

But then "scientific advancement" of known concepts, which you also said that these forums are for pursuing, is not advancement at all if you don't use known and widely-accepted theoretical frameworks to work out solutions to unknown questions. It's merely stagnant talk about known laws of physics as they stand (and homework assistance.)

 

[PeterDonis]

"scientific advancement" of known concepts, which you also said that these forums are for pursuing, is not advancement at all if you don't use known and widely-accepted theoretical frameworks to work out solutions to unknown questions.

This is not what you were describing before. Before, you were describing this scenario: someone posts a personal theory here on PF; even though their post shows a clear lack of understanding of current theories, it somehow inspires a "wise scientist" to come up with a new idea that actually works. That is way too unlikely to bother considering; but it's also different from what you're talking about in the quote just above.

In that quote, you're talking about this scenario: someone posts a question here on PF--not a personal theory but just a question about something they don't understand or can't work out the math for--which leads to a discussion in which a currently known theory is used to derive a new result--or at least one that is new to the participants. That does happen, and has happened here on PF. But it doesn't happen as a result of someone posting a personal theory.