When Rejection Seems "Out of Hand"

[ALine]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

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.

 

Thank you for the response,

You are right studiot.

To add to what you are saying I would like to incorporate my own idea of how teaching new ideas should be presented. That is in the combining both the structure created from formally developed ideas along with a fluid development of new ideas then you can eventually start creating legos for students to play with. 

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, ALine said:

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. 

Customization will force correct I believe. As technology replaces more jobs people will need to find customized niches for employment. A kid born today will need to be far more educated than I needed to be. Quality paying jobs requiring no experience or previous education are disappearing faster than glaciers. Things like 3D printing, self sufficient structures, A.I., and etc will demand more skill. The days where a company could just build 5,000 cookie cutter homes which are all identical out in some suburb are ending. Change is always hard. There are always growing pains. Ultimately the youth today have no choice but to become smart. 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, ALine said:

(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.

Indeed. And, it can be misleading, because people in this group sometimes pose the questions as "what if <alternative scenario>" or even appear to be proposing an alternative scenario rather than actually asking a question. But they are usually happy to be corrected and to learn.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

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

But without putting in the years of study required (and, quite possibly, but not necessarily, without being as smart).

[zapatos]

I suspect for some people it feels unfair when after giving a lengthy explanation they've spent ages working on, they get a response that sounds like "you are wrong because of 'x', here is a link that explains things for you." They've already given this a lot of thought and obviously think they already understand.

Most of the responses people here give focus on pointing out the errors with a speculation, and rightly so. But if you want to address the issue of appearing to reject an idea 'out of hand', it would be wise to stop telling them they are wrong, and present it in such a way that they arrive at the conclusion they are wrong all by themselves. Get them to accept the logic/evidence/math that is the foundation of the valid theory we are defending while leaving out the section where their flaw resides. If presented well, when you ask them to fill in the missing section, there will only be one possibility (the right one).

My analogy is painting a picture for them while leaving out one section. When they look at the painting you want them to say "ah, obviously that section should be filled with the woman's face, not a pustulating boil as I previously suspected".

 

[Markus Hanke]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

But if you want to address the issue of appearing to reject an idea 'out of hand', it would be wise to stop telling them they are wrong, and present it in such a way that they arrive at the conclusion they are wrong all by themselves.

This is what I generally try to do - however, it seems that this strategy is successful only on rare occasions.

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is what I generally try to do - however, it seems that this strategy is successful only on rare occasions.

Unfortunately that seems to be true. And you can only bang your head against the wall so many times before you realize the wall is not going to collapse.

[Markus Hanke]

Exactly.

That being said, on those rare occasions when it is successful, it‘s a very satisfying experience

[swansont]

4 hours 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) 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.

...

(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.  

...

In rough terms, using these descriptions, a type 1 person asks questions, and a type 2 person makes pronouncements. And for the most part, they are treated differently. Questions are answered, and pronouncements are challenged.

There are the occasional visitors who phrase their pronouncements as questions, but it is often obvious that there is an agenda at play.

 

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Most of the responses people here give focus on pointing out the errors with a speculation, and rightly so. But if you want to address the issue of appearing to reject an idea 'out of hand', it would be wise to stop telling them they are wrong, and present it in such a way that they arrive at the conclusion they are wrong all by themselves. Get them to accept the logic/evidence/math that is the foundation of the valid theory we are defending while leaving out the section where their flaw resides. If presented well, when you ask them to fill in the missing section, there will only be one possibility (the right one).

Unfortunately there is a large contingent who do not make any kind of testable predictions with their conjecture, making this difficult to implement.

[beecee]

12 hours ago, Silvestru said:

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.

All three highlighted sentences are in my opinion totally valid and on my opinion the prime reason is as mentioned and highlighted in the following......

5 hours ago, swansont said:

In rough terms, using these descriptions, a type 1 person asks questions, and a type 2 person makes pronouncements. And for the most part, they are treated differently. Questions are answered, and pronouncements are challenged.

There are the occasional visitors who phrase their pronouncements as questions, but it is often obvious that there is an agenda at play.

 

 

Unfortunately there is a large contingent who do not make any kind of testable predictions with their conjecture, making this difficult to implement.

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by beecee