When Rejection Seems "Out of Hand"

[Phi for All]

When folks come to speculate, they often receive quick replies from members pointing out obvious flaws, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings. No foul there, this is a very informal peer review, and we should expect anyone coming here to want such critique. Unfortunately, picking at this low-hanging fruit almost always gives the impression that an idea is being rejected "out-of-hand", wildly or thoughtlessly or as a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted to create a thread here in Comments to discuss how to better deal with this problem in our conversations, and hopefully the next time someone brings it up, we can point them here instead of rehashing it every time.

Just as a for instance, when someone bases their idea on energy being a physical thing, or that the universe MUST be expanding into something (very common mistakes), correcting it is not a knee-jerk reaction. So why is it so often treated as a thoughtless and out-of-hand rejection? It's frustrating when your help in pointing out misinterpretations is misinterpreted.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

When folks come to speculate, they often receive quick replies from members pointing out obvious flaws, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings. No foul there, this is a very informal peer review, and we should expect anyone coming here to want such critique. Unfortunately, picking at this low-hanging fruit almost always gives the impression that an idea is being rejected "out-of-hand", wildly or thoughtlessly or as a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted to create a thread here in Comments to discuss how to better deal with this problem in our conversations, and hopefully the next time someone brings it up, we can point them here instead of rehashing it every time.

Just as a for instance, when someone bases their idea on energy being a physical thing, or that the universe MUST be expanding into something (very common mistakes), correcting it is not a knee-jerk reaction. So why is it so often treated as a thoughtless and out-of-hand rejection? It's frustrating when your help in pointing out misinterpretations is misinterpreted.

There is no algorithm sophisticated enough, Autonomous vehicles, such a simple thing... 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

When folks come to speculate, they often receive quick replies from members pointing out obvious flaws, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings. No foul there, this is a very informal peer review, and we should expect anyone coming here to want such critique. Unfortunately, picking at this low-hanging fruit almost always gives the impression that an idea is being rejected "out-of-hand", wildly or thoughtlessly or as a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted to create a thread here in Comments to discuss how to better deal with this problem in our conversations, and hopefully the next time someone brings it up, we can point them here instead of rehashing it every time.

Just as a for instance, when someone bases their idea on energy being a physical thing, or that the universe MUST be expanding into something (very common mistakes), correcting it is not a knee-jerk reaction. So why is it so often treated as a thoughtless and out-of-hand rejection? It's frustrating when your help in pointing out misinterpretations is misinterpreted.

Unless one is in science or does this type of discussion, the dryness of the responses and rebuttals can seem like a terse attack. People are used having their feelings taken into consideration. You either get through that stage or you don't. After nine years on here, I'm  just about bullet-proof. I can''t wait to have an idea and ninja everybody... I dream.  

[Phi for All]

I always hope analogies can help. Let's pretend you're a plumber, and someone mentions an idea for building houses using iron pipes instead of wood 2x4s so the structure could also run water through them, for heating, bathing, and drinking purposes. They want you to analyze how much stronger iron is than copper, and how much more efficient the whole thing could be, but the first thing you mention is how iron pipes rust and and corrode in water. It seems like the most reasoned comment you could offer, but you're accused of out-of-hand rejection. 

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I always hope analogies can help. Let's pretend you're a plumber, and someone mentions an idea for building houses using iron pipes instead of wood 2x4s so the structure could also run water through them, for heating, bathing, and drinking purposes. They want you to analyze how much stronger iron is than copper, and how much more efficient the whole thing could be, but the first thing you mention is how iron pipes rust and and corrode in water. It seems like the most reasoned comment you could offer, but you're accused of out-of-hand rejection. 

"but... but...pretend it doesn't rust"  Of course, at that point, we go into the realms of not doing science.

[studiot]

43 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I always hope analogies can help. Let's pretend you're a plumber, and someone mentions an idea for building houses using iron pipes instead of wood 2x4s so the structure could also run water through them, for heating, bathing, and drinking purposes. They want you to analyze how much stronger iron is than copper, and how much more efficient the whole thing could be, but the first thing you mention is how iron pipes rust and and corrode in water. It seems like the most reasoned comment you could offer, but you're accused of out-of-hand rejection. 

Well that about sums up the difference between the US and the UK.

 

You hit people with 2x4s we hit them with 4x2s.

 

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

You hit people with 2x4s we hit them with 4x2s.

Only when they reject my ideas out-of-hand!

[Strange]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Unless one is in science or does this type of discussion, the dryness of the responses and rebuttals can seem like a terse attack.

I am aware that my responses (positive and negative) often come across that way. I have, in the past, tried to start off with something like "interesting idea but..." or "this bit is correct but you seem to have misunderstood this ..."

But I suspect my patience has been worn down by the number of instant, "I'm right, scientists are all wrong, read what I said again and you will see I am right" type of responses.

The thread(s) that are, presumably, the immediate cause of this one was particularly frustrating because the poster insisted that we just accept their ideas and that we were being narrow minded for not doing so. But from my (our?) point of view, they were being narrow minded for not accepting any attempts to correct their misconceptions.

I suspect that, in cases like that, no attempt to soften the criticism or corrections will make any difference: they know they are correct (after all, the idea makes perfect sense to them) and so the problem obviously lies with the audience.

 

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I suspect that, in cases like that, no attempt to soften the criticism or corrections will make any difference: they know they are correct (after all, the idea makes perfect sense to them) and so the problem obviously lies with the audience.

It's especially difficult with the Einstein-was-wrong posts where the objections are easily countered (mixing classic and quantum concepts, or misunderstanding "fabric" analogies), but for some reason that's not enough to invalidate the whole concept, and that's a bit weird, imo.

OP: The way you built this Lego office complex is wrong! I've fixed it to make it better!

Reply: It was designed to be "a home with a red roof and white walls", so it's not an office, you've used green on the sides, and don't have a roof at all. 

OP: Typical kneejerk rejection of my ideas....

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

When folks come to speculate, they often receive quick replies from members pointing out obvious flaws, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings. No foul there, this is a very informal peer review, and we should expect anyone coming here to want such critique. Unfortunately, picking at this low-hanging fruit almost always gives the impression that an idea is being rejected "out-of-hand", wildly or thoughtlessly or as a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted to create a thread here in Comments to discuss how to better deal with this problem in our conversations, and hopefully the next time someone brings it up, we can point them here instead of rehashing it every time.

Just as a for instance, when someone bases their idea on energy being a physical thing, or that the universe MUST be expanding into something (very common mistakes), correcting it is not a knee-jerk reaction. So why is it so often treated as a thoughtless and out-of-hand rejection? It's frustrating when your help in pointing out misinterpretations is misinterpreted.

While the possibility certainly exists that one day forums such as this could be the vehicle for some momentous new theory that may change our picture of the universe we inhabit, the chances are really really slim. Every Mother sees her child as perfect sweet and lovable, and no amount of pointing out flaws in that child will ever change that Mother's opinion. Likewise is the feeling when someone who has "briefly"  read up on modern cosmology and GR, believes he/she has improved on it while contemplating ideas and possibilities. To have there idea/hypothesis rejected is tantamount to pointing out the flaws in a Mother's child. It is hard to accept and sometimes down right impossible to accept that which is obvious to everyone else. Which is why in most cases such claims miserably fail the points at https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115017-science-theories-and-all-that/

 

The claims of outright rejection of alternative ideas is in essence  the only "comeback"  that those putting such claims really have in most cases. But that of course is easily shown to be false, by the fact of the never ending advancements and changes of science in all areas over the years. The scientific methodology itself entails critical review of new ideas.Like you said, the question needs to be asked why people come to a science forum, with claims of overthrowing an incumbent idea, when they have no intention of listening to any critical review. Then of course we have the real reason why this happens, in that such person/s inevitably may have an axe to grind, or be laden with some [religious] agenda. And what better place to start their crusade then with Einstein!

In essence any claims of outright rejection, can and should be actually levelled at  those claiming to have overthrown some incumbent theory. Inevitably it is they that have rejected a 100 years or more of the evidence of modern cosmology and GR, and the many examples of the state of the art equipment, probes, and installations that they do not have access to.

 

The mods/admins here need not have anything to concern themselves with any claim of outright rejection..

 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by beecee

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So why is it so often treated as a thoughtless and out-of-hand rejection?

I think the problem is that often people do not realize their new and unique idea  is actually old and disproved a hundred times over. Often ideas recycle under different names or just aren't discovered by people till certain times in their lives. When a person, often a student or retiree(spare time), comes across them for the first time they seem cool. For example Creationism became Intelligent Design and now seems to becoming a Science Fiction-esque concept the the universe itself is god. The first time one learns about Fibonacci numbers it can seem as it there is more going on, intelligence. It is natural to mistake ones own newness to an idea with actual new ideas. Pulling up old threads addressing the exact same issue helps provide context sometimes.

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I always hope analogies can help. Let's pretend you're a plumber, and someone mentions an idea for building houses using iron pipes instead of wood 2x4s so the structure could also run water through them, for heating, bathing, and drinking purposes. They want you to analyze how much stronger iron is than copper, and how much more efficient the whole thing could be, but the first thing you mention is how iron pipes rust and and corrode in water. It seems like the most reasoned comment you could offer, but you're accused of out-of-hand rejection. 

This analogy doesn't work in my opinion because one can actually build a structure with Iron pipes. Not only that but all the obvious problems with doing so can be overcome with the proper coatings, sleeves, insulation, etc. The reason it isn't done is because it simply isn't a efficient way (time or money) to do it. 

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

When folks come to speculate, they often receive quick replies from members pointing out obvious flaws, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings.

Some random thoughts about this.

1)

These 'speculations' are all too often posted in mainstream sections and equally all too often have to be forced into 'speculations' by the moderators.

So how many come to speculate or  realise they are speculating or even know/understand what a speculation is?

2) 

Those with closed ears can often be recognised by a barrage of 'word salad'.

3) 

Some seem to me to be somewhat autistic or have some other disability and are genuinely doing their best but have unconventional thought processes.
These people often have difficulty expressing themselves or following conventional discussion paths.
They may appear obstinate and non receptive to outside comment, despite the contradiction of being on a discussion website.

This is just the way they are.

Patience is essential with these people.

4) 

We have one active (nameless) member who has moved out of the obstinate category and achieved some genuinely productive threads.

Frustrating at first, but rewarding in the second.

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Some random thoughts about this.

1)

These 'speculations' are all too often posted in mainstream sections and equally all too often have to be forced into 'speculations' by the moderators.

So how many come to speculate or  realise they are speculating or even know/understand what a speculation is?

Most are not overly familiar with science, and act like all ideas have equal footing. No idea between a scientific thought and a WAG. So no, I don't think they realize that they're speculating, as we describe it.

 

[iNow]

Seems now is as good a time as any to revisit this classic:

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

3)

Some seem to me to be somewhat autistic or have some other disability and are genuinely doing their best but have unconventional thought processes.
These people often have difficulty expressing themselves or following conventional discussion paths.
They may appear obstinate and non receptive to outside comment, despite the contradiction of being on a discussion website.

This is just the way they are.

Patience is essential with these people.

This is a weak spot for us then, since many speculators claim to have special intuition and unconventional thought processes that allow them to bypass the maths normally required for a model on which to base their theory. They're proud of it, rather than frustrated at not being able to explain it. How to tell if they're really one of these people you're talking about? 

[Mordred]

LOL the aversion to math is rather frustrating lol in many cases it is this aversion to understanding the math that causes them to reinvent the mainstream to something that makes sense to them. Yet once you understand the math you realize it makes sense. This is extremely common for relativity, you will note very rarely does any Einstein is wrong poster ever mention vector addition under either the Lorentz or Galilean tansforms

Edited June 29, 2018 by Mordred

[Ken Fabian]

I try to avoid the insults, to the extent of politely explaining what I think and why I think they are wrong. For some people just telling them they are wrong will be taken as an insult - if there is no great interest in the subject at hand I will usually give it one more try, politely, to be sure then leave others to it and move on. If I do have a particular interest I might persist further, sometimes consciously making it an exercise in better educating myself and in communicating clearly. And if they lower their bar I make an effort to not lower mine - just not 100% successfully. Worst of all in my experience (elsewhere) when unprincipled moderators are the principle offenders.

[Markus Hanke]

One very common issue is that people get stuck in a particular paradigm - the most prevalent of which is the notion that human perception and experience is an adequate representation of how the universe works - which of course it isn‘t. That is why we so often see people coming here and elsewhere to reject models such as relativity; because many of its concepts do not make sense in the context of everyday human experience. Essentially, people get stuck in a Newtonian worldview, based on how they experience the world on a day to day basis, and are simply not receptive to the idea that the Newtonian paradigm is very limited in its domain of applicability, and does not apply to the universe at large. It is hence no surprise that many people fight tooth and nail against ideas such as time dilation, length contraction etc etc - because if human perception and experience is your only point of reference, then these things really do not make much sense, because they invalidate the very fundamental notion of there being an absolute time and space. What‘s more, they invalidate the notion that us human beings, and the way we perceive the world, play any kind of privileged role in the universe at all. This can be a very hard pill to swallow for many.

The same goes for all of quantum physics, as well as the more technical and advanced models in physics - we just don‘t get that many discussions about them, because people generally don‘t know much about these. Quantum physics in particular pretty much destroys most of what we believe is true about the world, based on human experience - if more people understood what it actually implies, we‘d see no end of „anti-quantum“ discussions here.

Addressing this is very difficult, because getting stuck in a paradigm/worldview is a very powerful psychological attachment. If you are truly convinced that time, space and classicality must be absolute and immutable, then no amount of experimental evidence or mathematics - no matter how logical or irrefutable - is likely to sway your mind. 

I often feel a bit sorry for people like that, because mostly they don‘t realise that they are stuck in a paradigm, so in a certain sense it isn‘t really their fault that they are non-receptive to criticism of their ideas. And even if they realise their being stuck, getting out of the trap generally takes more than just logical arguments. Intellectual knowledge is only the first level of understanding; to be truly convinced of an idea, one has to grasp its paradigm on an deeper, more intuitive level as well. And that can take time and much effort (it does for me, anyway).

[Silvestru]

Guys can we be honest for a moment?
Reasonable members don't get offended by "peer reviews" and I have followed several posts where some members had a speculation quite nicely described and accompanied by a mathematical model and other members were giving correction to the actual model and it was fairly easy for the person to realise he made a mistake based on the numbers.
I don't know how you can call it "peer review" when a (usually new) member posts that Einstein was wrong, Zero Energy universe, dark matter comes from black holes, I don't know what else, accompanied by nothing else than the baseless speculation.
Of course things can get a bit out of hand.
I imagine if someone reasonable would want a second opinion on relativity the post would be something like: : "A different look at Relativity" and not "Einstein was a hoaX!! How could we not see that relativity is wrong!"
 

I admire that you want to bring a bit of understanding to this issues but I am imagining that the people who consider things out of hand are not reading this thread, or any thread for that matter, they just want to put forward their "ideas" and are not open to criticism.

[ALine]

Hi, my name is ALine.

I am new to this community and would like to put my opinion into the ring.

It can generally be presumed that those who visit this site fall into 2 distinct categories.

(1) An individual who is highly curious about the sciences, however, has no background within it what so ever which causes them to ask seemingly strange and simplistic questions. For this individual who is simply naturally curious, you need to be more gentle with them in your responses. It is comparative to a child who just wants to learn something new or wants to express new ideas to a community who is primarily focused toward discussing these ideas openly and fluidly. Depending upon the individual's method of delivering his thoughts or ideas it can be inferred that they are either scared of being judged for there ideas because it is being submitted into an open "arena" or they are just anxious about doing so. It is as if one of you were to go into say the arts without ever having picked up a paintbrush before and is expected to draw the Mona Lisa. By being accepting of all possible ideas it would allow for more individuals to become interested in the sciences. That is not to say that you should lessen your scrutiny of there ideas because hey let's face it if an idea is not rooted in reality then it no longer becomes a science, it is known as an art. However, instead of abruptly pointing out flaws or errors in work submitted slowly guide them in the right direction. Rome was not built in a day. The more they come on here the more they will realize their mistakes and the more they will come to realize that it is they themselves that are wrong.  People really hate it when they are wrong, that is one of the consequences of the human psyche, probably. Some people will need to be moved quickly to build them up faster and some need to be moved more slowly and gradually. In doing so you can have a "LOT" more passionate individuals and have a lot more creative individuals share their ideas on here while at the same time being able to slowly start to accept criticism.

(2) An individual who only wishes to prove that they are right no matter what else happens. No matter what you say or what you do they will always claim that their idea is the best idea because it proves this thing wrong, and then they do not themselves prove it wrong. Who says they know the material without knowing the material.  These individuals are a little bit more tricky yet simple to deal with. Just kindly ask them to explain how they came to that conclusion. When they give an explanation simply provide your explanation for how
that may be correct or incorrect. Slowly work with them to deconstruct their argument in a constructive way. See how they got to that eventual conclusion so that you can assist them in there logical and rational train of thought so that you can train them and they can help train you to become better rational thinkers. You may learn something new as well.

This is not a game of "who is smartest" nor is it a fitness function in which only the "smartest" survive. What you all have created here is an academy for the free expression of knowledge between student and professor. The student must respect the professor for how much he knows and the teacher must respect the student for how much he wants to know. Both most work in a synergetic union in order to build on top of each other. The student will know more than the professor creatively and the professor will know more than the student in regards to the wisdom that they have acquired.

 

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

One very common issue is that people get stuck in a particular paradigm - the most prevalent of which is the notion that human perception and experience is an adequate representation of how the universe works - which of course it isn‘t. That is why we so often see people coming here and elsewhere to reject models such as relativity; because many of its concepts do not make sense in the context of everyday human experience. Essentially, people get stuck in a Newtonian worldview, based on how they experience the world on a day to day basis, and are simply not receptive to the idea that the Newtonian paradigm is very limited in its domain of applicability, and does not apply to the universe at large. It is hence no surprise that many people fight tooth and nail against ideas such as time dilation, length contraction etc etc - because if human perception and experience is your only point of reference, then these things really do not make much sense, because they invalidate the very fundamental notion of there being an absolute time and space. What‘s more, they invalidate the notion that us human beings, and the way we perceive the world, play any kind of privileged role in the universe at all. This can be a very hard pill to swallow for many.

The same goes for all of quantum physics, as well as the more technical and advanced models in physics - we just don‘t get that many discussions about them, because people generally don‘t know much about these. Quantum physics in particular pretty much destroys most of what we believe is true about the world, based on human experience - if more people understood what it actually implies, we‘d see no end of „anti-quantum“ discussions here.

Addressing this is very difficult, because getting stuck in a paradigm/worldview is a very powerful psychological attachment. If you are truly convinced that time, space and classicality must be absolute and immutable, then no amount of experimental evidence or mathematics - no matter how logical or irrefutable - is likely to sway your mind. 

I often feel a bit sorry for people like that, because mostly they don‘t realise that they are stuck in a paradigm, so in a certain sense it isn‘t really their fault that they are non-receptive to criticism of their ideas. And even if they realise their being stuck, getting out of the trap generally takes more than just logical arguments. Intellectual knowledge is only the first level of understanding; to be truly convinced of an idea, one has to grasp its paradigm on an deeper, more intuitive level as well. And that can take time and much effort (it does for me, anyway).

It takes a long time to be receptive, without internal resistance, to relativity and quantum ideas.

[Ten oz]

31 minutes ago, ALine said:

Hi, my name is ALine.

I am new to this community and would like to put my opinion into the ring.

It can generally be presumed that those who visit this site fall into 2 distinct categories.

+1, glad you joined. This is quite the presumptuous initial post.

36 minutes ago, ALine said:

This is not a game of "who is smartest" nor is it a fitness function in which only the "smartest" survive. What you all have created here is an academy for the free expression of knowledge between student and professor. The student must respect the professor for how much he knows and the teacher must respect the student for how much he wants to know. Both most work in a synergetic union in order to build on top of each other. The student will know more than the professor creatively and the professor will know more than the student in regards to the wisdom that they have acquired.

 I agree. However I think in society at large there is a large group on individuals who have rediscovered the proverb "squeaky wheel get the grease" and are using it as a life hack. Their arguments are often times more about not being silenced than whether or not they are right. Which is where the charge of being dismissed out of had comes into play. It muddies the waters. It is less about saying "I'm right" and more about saying "you are wrong too".

[ALine]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

+1, glad you joined. This is quite the presumptuous initial post.

 I agree. However I think in society at large there is a large group on individuals who have rediscovered the proverb "squeaky wheel get the grease" and are using it as a life hack. Their arguments are often times more about not being silenced than whether or not they are right. Which is where the charge of being dismissed out of had comes into play. It muddies the waters. It is less about saying "I'm right" and more about saying "you are wrong too".

3

Thank you for the response,

I believe that this ideology must be corrected in order to allow for the youth of our future to excel in the fields they so choose to create and/or be a part of. 

But if others who see those who want to advance themselves academically in order to obtain a better grasp of reality through the means of both the sciences and arts, and by art I mean the art that mimics the expressionism of the artists who wish to depict reality in their own form and not this postmodernism bull, as a cog in there perfect world I say let them try to put grease of these wheels but just know that I made both the grease and the wheel ;P.

Edited June 29, 2018 by ALine
These was a repeating of the words "try to" so I removed one of them. Also had to add something.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

+1, glad you joined. This is quite the presumptuous initial post.

 I agree. However I think in society at large there is a large group on individuals who have rediscovered the proverb "squeaky wheel get the grease" and are using it as a life hack. Their arguments are often times more about not being silenced than whether or not they are right. Which is where the charge of being dismissed out of had comes into play. It muddies the waters. It is less about saying "I'm right" and more about saying "you are wrong too".

More of these people want to be Galileo than Einstein wrt to battling the prevailing paradigm.

[studiot]

58 minutes ago, ALine said:

It can generally be presumed that those who visit this site fall into 2 distinct categories.

Yes welcome, but surely there are more than that?

 

 

A further thought.

Euclid did not discover his elements in the order and layout finally presented.

For most folks, one of the most boring and repulsive or discouraging methods of presentation (teaching) of knowledge follows the formal (streamlined) structure after it was discovered and worked out in detail. There are, of course, a few who prefer to study that way.

We create this formalism because such a structure is invaluable once the subject is known and grasped.

So discussion between peers ie when both sides already understand the foundations of the matter will be different from discussion with someone who is less knowledgeable.