Speculations VS pseudo-speculations ??

[swansont]

I agree. The dictionary must be used for a proper answer to OP question.

 

 

According to my understanding of the dictionary, your pseudo-speculation is a (very) poor speculation and your real speculation is a good one, or even a new theory.

 

I think that "Speculations" sub-forum should be divided in "Scientific speculations" (or "New theories") and "Wild speculations", and the theories posted in the first one, but without experimental evidence, falsifiable predictions and/or logic, to be moved/demoted to "Wild speculations", or even "Trash", if there are disagreements with experimental evidences.

Since we have no intention of supporting the kind of discussion that would fall under "wild speculation", I don't see the point in having a section like that. We're a science site. Connect the dots.

 

There are two kinds of people in the world. One kind can extrapolate from given information.

 

The existing "Speculations" sub-forum is suffocated by non-scientific speculations, so I'm reluctant to post my theories there, because my theories are in agrement with experimental evidences, offer mathematics and can be backed up by a "ton" of evidence (falsifiable predictions). Would you post a new & important theory there? (And no, a scientific journal is not a solution, because the editors are very reluctant to accept really new solutions to very important problems from unknown scientists.)

 

If a new theory checked out after extensive discussion, we would move it to the appropriate mainstream forum. This particular problem has never, AFAIK, manifested itself.

So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some

of established science is not a scientific speculation?

 

If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

" So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some

of established science is not a scientific speculation? "

 

 

If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

 

 

 

Could you give me an example?

[Dave Moore]

I did not insult you. and the quote button doesn't work for me. Period.

Nooooo. I love you, Strange.

[swansont]

 

Could you give me an example?

 

 

 

The Bohr model of the atom

[Strange]

I think that "Speculations" sub-forum should be divided in "Scientific speculations" (or "New theories") and "Wild speculations", and the theories posted in the first one, but without experimental evidence, falsifiable predictions and/or logic, to be moved/demoted to "Wild speculations", or even "Trash", if there are disagreements with experimental evidences.

 

 

If that were done, and the rules rigorously enforced, the "Scientific Speculations" forum would be empty and the "Wild" one would have all the crap that currently gets posted.

 

So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some

of established science is not a scientific speculation?

 

Not at all. It may or may not be correct. But many scientific ideas contradict current theories. That is how science progresses.

[Phi for All]

I think that "Speculations" sub-forum should be divided in "Scientific speculations" (or "New theories") and "Wild speculations", and the theories posted in the first one, but without experimental evidence, falsifiable predictions and/or logic, to be moved/demoted to "Wild speculations", or even "Trash", if there are disagreements with experimental evidences.

 

I think you should stop treating us as a place where wild speculations are appreciated as discussion material (especially when evidence is never presented). There are other sites for that. The owners of this site prefer more rigor, and most members feel that way too.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

" So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some

of established science is not a scientific speculation? "

 

 

If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

 

Could you give me an example?

 

 

The Bohr model of the atom

 

 

So, why Bohr put forward that un-scientific speculation

that disagreed with experiment ???

[Strange]

So, why Bohr put forward that un-scientific speculation

that disagreed with experiment ???

 

 

It didn't disagree with evidence at the time.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

 

It didn't disagree with evidence at the time.

 

Well, then by your standards it should not have been questioned,

nor suspected, nor criticised, becuase it didn't disagree

with all scientific evidence at the time!

[Strange]

 

Well, then by your standards it should not have been questioned,

nor suspected, nor criticised, becuase it didn't disagree

with all scientific evidence at the time!

 

 

All scientific theories are questioned, suspected, criticised, challenged and tested all the time. That is how science progresses.

 

And when new evidence is found, then theories are updated or even abandoned.

[Lord Antares]

 

Well, then by your standards it should not have been questioned,

nor suspected, nor criticised, becuase it didn't disagree

with all scientific evidence at the time!

 

Your question is invalid, but you came close to making a point.

 

A better question would be ''why was Bohr's model accepted in the first place if there was no evidence?''

 

I will let someone else answer that.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

 

All scientific theories are questioned, suspected, criticised, challenged and tested all the time. That is how science progresses.

 

And when new evidence is found, then theories are updated or even abandoned.

 

 

So, what was the physical evidence based on which

Bohr put forward his un-scientific speculation regarding model of the atom?

[CharonY]

Specifically for the Bohr model, it was used for a while as it helped to explain the Rydberg formula of spectral lines (if memory serves). As such it was an improvement in our understanding and was altered as new evidence showed up.

 

To make a general point, if you build a hypothesis that accurately reflects the current knowledge (which requires a certain degree of current knowledge, of course), it is considered mainstream.

 

If you extend aspects of it, but are still reasonably close to the current theoretical framework, it is considered speculation. Usually this leads to a particular novel aspect that can be tested one way or another.

 

If you propose an alternate theory that clashes with existing knowledge, you need to have significant (usually experimental) evidence to support it. If you don't it is usually pseudoscience.

[swansont]

" So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some

of established science is not a scientific speculation? "

 

 

If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

 

 

Could you give me an example?

 

 

 

So, why Bohr put forward that un-scientific speculation

that disagreed with experiment ???

Please reread what I wrote. "Unscientific" is you, attributing something to me which I did not say. I just said it was wrong. My point was: why would you bother advancing an hypothesis that you knew to be wrong?

[Strange]

 

 

So, what was the physical evidence based on which

Bohr put forward his un-scientific speculation regarding model of the atom?

 

 

1. "The model's key success lay in explaining the Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

 

2. It wasn't unscientific. Why do you claim it was?

 

 

 

 

Stop doing that.

[Eise]

 

So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some

of established science is not a scientific speculation?

 

I said:

 

Scientific speculations are at least not in contradiction with most of established science.

 

And then you ask if I agree with:

 

A speculation that is in contradiction with some of established science is not a scientific speculation.

 

Ehhh? Didn't you understand what I wrote?

 

Let's take the Bohr example:

• Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom was in contradiction with established theories about electromagnetism.
• Bohr's model explained the spectrum of hydrogen numerically precisely.

So at one side it contradicted established science, on the other side it could explain something that physics until then couldn't. There obviously is a tension here: Bohr himself of course knew that he proposed something that couldn't be the last word. But Bohr's atom model was not in contradiction with the whole body of physics.

 

Another important point is that established science can mean (at least) two things: scientific facts and scientific theories. Scientific theories can always be amended again. e.g. when we try to apply a theory in a domain where it does not lead to acceptable empirical predictions. But scientific facts cannot be denied. It is empirically measured that clocks slow down by high velocities, so there is no point to deny it, and yell 'relativity is wrong!'. It is an empirical fact that in a homeopathic solution of C100 there is no single molecule of the original substance in it.

 

So if a speculation is in contradiction with scientific facts, then forget it. If your speculation is against established theories, then be sure you explain more facts than present theories do.

 

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing (in principle) against wild speculations. It seems there are also people who collect stamps. But I have something against people who think scientists should all listen to their ideas, and get angry that their ideas are suppressed.

In case of e.g. climate change I heavily have something against people who take their speculations as truths, and act upon them.

 

Is there a difference between: scientific speculation and scientific hypothesis ?

 

I think I gave a kind of difference, but this is not dictionary-ripe. A hypothesis can be tested in the immediate future. A speculation's empirical confirmation lies in an unknown future. (Multiverse? String Theory?).

Edited March 28, 2017 by Eise

[DrP]

QUOTE Dave Moore: "I asked a question "Are placebo's getting better"."

 

 

No you didn't - you aske "WHY are placebos getting better?" and declared as a fact that they were..... then later it turned out that in fact they were NOT getting better and it was only for pain killers, where we well know that psychological effects can influence the way we experience pain.

 

....... with all this dishonesty and lying, why would you expect anyone to believe you when you say your dreams come true.... later will you might well admit that it doesn't always happen - how can we trust your word anymore?

 

 

SORRY: I missed the whole of page 2 of the conversation before posting this... I'm out of date here.

(and the quote button doesn't work for me when I am at work either... which you say it doesn't for you either, but then you go and say "HE can't even use the quote feature"... Double standard? And you wonder why you rub people up the wrong way. Total!

Edited March 28, 2017 by DrP

[DanMP]

However I balk at your reasoning for not publishing in a journal. I review articles written by scientists I've never heard of all the time and many journals like the Nature group are now offering double blind reviews. Did you have a specific bad experience submitting an article, or are you just assuming that because you're not "famous" your article will get desk rejected? We've had posters here before shoot way too high with their papers (i.e. Nature, Science, Cell, etc) and despite being warned that these journals have >95% rejection rates, come back claiming prejudice was the reason, rather than their work just wasn't that broad and interesting, or potentially just wrong.

I did have a bad experience. I sent my work in 3 places. The first was "arxiv", replying (correctly) that my "submission was in need of significant review and revision before it would be considered publishable by a conventional journal [...] Please submit instead to a conventional journal to receive the requisite feedback". After a revision I sent it to "Annalen der Physik" and the Editor-in-Chief replied "The topic is undoubtedly relevant. However, this does not mean that any work from an author without research background and with no publication record in this field can be considered by our highly selective and high-profile journal. Moreover, the manuscript contains no references, i.e. does not show any relation to current intense international research activities [...] Please consider, after improvement of your work, a different journal in the area of astrophysics or cosmology. I hope for your understanding". The last was "Physics of the Dark Universe" and the answer was: "I regret to inform you that your manuscript has been considered [correctly, again] beyond the scope of the journal. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work".

 

This was in 2015. After that, I tried to find help in improving the article, at my university, and the majority of my colleagues responded that they didn't have enough time and/or the expertise in the field. Only 2 of them actually read the article and sent me comments, but both of them made a mistake regarding the first part, comparing my result with the one obtained using Lorentz transformations, instead of comparing both results with the experimental result ... In the second part they considered that more math is needed but they didn't offer to help and by myself I can't do it.

 

The main problem is that the level of presentation is much too low compared with the importance of the subject. So, here I am, ready to divide the article in 2, rewrite some parts, add or correct here and there, and post them in the forum, probably in "Speculations", because there is not a "Personal theories" sub-forum and this is absolutely no mainstream, although it is scientific, in agreement with what we know from experiments and offering many testable predictions.

 

Back to the main subject, I think that speculations are important, even when imperfect, because they may contain some good ideas, ideas that may lead to future mainstream theories. When so much part of the universe is considered "dark", we should expect big changes in physics ...

 

About "Scientific Speculations" + "Wild Speculations",

If that were done, and the rules rigorously enforced, the "Scientific Speculations" forum would be empty and the "Wild" one would have all the crap that currently gets posted.

and

Since we have no intention of supporting the kind of discussion that would fall under "wild speculation", I don't see the point in having a section like that. We're a science site. Connect the dots.

 

So, there is rigor in "Speculations", but not enough, according to Strange. Considering that, I change my proposition to: "Personal theories" (more rigorous) + "Speculations" (less rigorous) + "Trash" (garbage), in order to separate the really scientific speculations from "all the crap that currently gets posted" ...

[swansont]

 

So, there is rigor in "Speculations", but not enough, according to Strange. Considering that, I change my proposition to: "Personal theories" (more rigorous) + "Speculations" (less rigorous) + "Trash" (garbage), in order to separate the really scientific speculations from "all the crap that currently gets posted" ...

 

 

The thing is, we can't stop people from posting crap. They will do as they will, regardless of the rules. They post all of these things in the mainstream science section, and we move it to speculations or the trash. We ask them for more rigor. When it doesn't appear, we shut the discussion down.

 

All the while they piss and moan about being disrespected for moving their personal gem (they've worked on it for YEARS and know in their gut that it's right) into the speculations section. zOMG, it's right next to the trash can! They can apparently smell the stench of the folder.

 

All you seem to be doing is adding another category, which is more work and will likely only make the sorting complaints worse. No thank you.

[StringJunky]

 

 

The thing is, we can't stop people from posting crap. They will do as they will, regardless of the rules. They post all of these things in the mainstream science section, and we move it to speculations or the trash already. We ask them for more rigor. When it doesn't appear, we shut the discussion down.

 

All the while they piss and moan about being disrespected for moving their personal gem (they've worked on it for YEARS and know in their gut that it's right) into the speculations section. zOMG, it's right next to the trash can! They can apparently smell the stench of the folder.

 

All you seem to be doing is adding another category, which is more work and will likely only make the sorting complaints worse. No thank you.

At best, speculations is a place to 'have a play' with or practice with the process of peer review. It's not going to give the speculator anything more than that; even a good idea. If I had an idea and put it up here, I would be using it to find faults. If you didn't pick it to bits, I'd be disappointed.

[swansont]

At best, speculations is a place to 'have a play' with or practice with the process of peer review. It's not going to give the speculator anything more than that; even a good idea. If I had an idea and put it up here, I would be using it to find faults. If you didn't pick it to bits, I'd be disappointed.

 

 

Indeed; the section has been described as informal peer review on more than one occasion. There has to be some substance in order to do that.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Indeed; the section has been described as informal peer review on more than one occasion. There has to be some substance in order to do that.

They are being reviewed but falling down on the first probing question.

[Phi for All]

They are being reviewed but falling down on the first probing question.

 

Many people go there with ideas they hope will click with someone who has the skills to seriously model them mathematically. What they don't realize is that those folks are already six steps ahead and have seen that it just won't work. It's ironic, in a way, that those folks often reject the input of the very people they came here to see, because their intuition overrides their trust in expertise.

[Strange]

 

Many people go there with ideas they hope will click with someone who has the skills to seriously model them mathematically. What they don't realize is that those folks are already six steps ahead and have seen that it just won't work. It's ironic, in a way, that those folks often reject the input of the very people they came here to see, because their intuition overrides their trust in expertise.

 

 

There also seems to be an implication that the people who could do the math are incapable of coming up with new ideas themselves. Of course, they are but they quickly reject 99% of the ideas they have with a quick "back of the envelope" calculation.

 

I was searching for an Asimov anecdote but came across this essay by him instead: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531911/isaac-asimov-asks-how-do-people-get-new-ideas/

 

 

 

Consequently, the person who is most likely to get new ideas is a person of good background in the field of interest and one who is unconventional in his habits. (To be a crackpot is not, however, enough in itself.)

...

The presence of others can only inhibit this process, since creation is embarrassing. For every new good idea you have, there are a hundred, ten thousand foolish ones, which you naturally do not care to display.

[StringJunky]

 

Many people go there with ideas they hope will click with someone who has the skills to seriously model them mathematically. What they don't realize is that those folks are already six steps ahead and have seen that it just won't work. It's ironic, in a way, that those folks often reject the input of the very people they came here to see, because their intuition overrides their trust in expertise.

As you've said before, it's the inability to realise that 'you don't know what you don't know'. But, somehow, scientists and people that like science, and some other disciplines, do.