Laziness or what?

[ajb]

What I don't understand is why people insist on working out their own theories before they understand current scientific thinking?

 

Is it just because they cannot be bothered to spend the time and effort that physics and mathematics requires?

 

I fully encourage anybody to think about science, but they should be armed with a basic knowledge. This comes through study and asking the right questions, not by making wild speculations.

 

Any comments?

[Dave]

I think it's good that a lot of people have enthusiasm for science. To be honest, I really don't mind when people come up with the crackpot ideas, as long as they're prepared to receive the criticism and learn from where they've gone wrong. (Granted, in a lot of cases this doesn't happen, but it does from time to time). It's quite disheartening to see these guys being mauled by conventional scientists, as quite a lot of thought has probably gone into some of these ideas, and whilst they may not hold up, commendation should be given for the effort of going out there and thinking them up.

 

I would like to think that it's not them being lazy, and rather that they don't have the time or experience to do so. As far as I can see, and drawing huge conclusions from my limited knowledge, there seem to be two main groups of these guys. Those who are teenagers, who are keen to go beyond their current knowledge of the subject to get to more interesting things that they haven't learnt yet, and adults who like to do science as a hobby (in whatever form).

 

Hopefully the former should be able to learn where they were going wrong by progressing through the education system, and ideally the latter should realise by us pointing out mistakes. From my own experience, the last thing that people want to do after a hard day's work is sit down with some Analysis textbook or something and get stuck in to some juicy epsilon-delta arguments.

 

Those are my two cents, for what they're worth.

[swansont]

I agree. I don't think you can fairly lump the "alternative theorists" together by causes , since the pathologies are probably different, but many of the resulting behaviors are the same. And not understanding the accepted theories nor able to do math (nor apply logic, all too often) is a pretty common theme, but I wouldn't speculate that laziness is the reason.

[swansont]

I think it's good that a lot of people have enthusiasm for science. To be honest, I really don't mind when people come up with the crackpot ideas, as long as they're prepared to receive the criticism and learn from where they've gone wrong. (Granted, in a lot of cases this doesn't happen, but it does from time to time). It's quite disheartening to see these guys being mauled by conventional scientists, as quite a lot of thought has probably gone into some of these ideas, and whilst they may not hold up, commendation should be given for the effort of going out there and thinking them up.

 

But what is generally not understood is that this "mauling" is how scientists behave with each other. The crackpot thinks he's being unfairly attacked, but actual science progresses by this "trial by fire." You float an idea, and everyone tries to shoot it down. That which survives has merit, and the longer it survives, the more confidence you have that it's right. But what is required is the understanding that "this is wrong" (along with details of why) is not a personal attack.

 

However, the danger is that someone has so much of their psyche tied up in their speculation that they defend it emotionally rather than rationally. Scientists do this too, on occasion; we're all human, but it seems much more common with the crackpot crowd. Too often they simply will not accept that they are wrong, even when presented with overwhelming data that shows it.

[ajb]

Ok, so it might not be laziness, but with public libraries, reliable web-books and other online resources why don't people read up on the basics?

 

I feel that a lot of the questions posted on this forum could be answered by a quick trip to the library.

[Dave]

swansont, I totally agree with that and I believe that peer review is the only sensible way of doing any kind of science. On the other hand, a lot of these people aren't scientists, and aren't necessarily used to receiving the kind of formal criticism that most people are used to giving out on these issues. I'm not trying to cast blame on anybody here, rather just make some sort of observation.

 

ajb, I agree that some of the issues on here could be solved by looking in the library or just googling. However, some people just aren't good book-readers and/or do not know where to look. I certainly think SFN serves a purpose, if only to point people in the right direction in some circumstances.

[Royston]

Ok, so it might not be laziness, but with public libraries, reliable web-books and other online resources why don't people read up on the basics?

 

I guess it depends on the source of their speculation, if the individual feels they've had a revelation of sorts, they'll most probably start from that premise, and try to loosely fit other theories around their idea. Clearly this is the wrong approach, I've had plenty of crazy ideas in the past...and still do, but it's best to keep them aside as an interesting thought, and as you said, start from the basics and study hard until you're at a level to rigorously test any past assumptions.

 

There's nothing wrong with outlandish ideas, as long as you don't take yourself too seriously and are willing to be corrected. Retaining a healthy imagination, whilst understanding the importance of logic and the fundamentals of science is more useful than just one or the other.

 

Others just like to take a wild stab in the dark, I guess in the hope that they may just stumble across something and usually get corrected, or are just told it's completely untestable et.c

 

I feel that a lot of the questions posted on this forum could be answered by a quick trip to the library.

 

True, but people asking questions is good practice for the person answering, and some questions do start off an interesting debate. I guess 'please use the search function' should be in massive bold letters on the home page, rather than shunning people away and telling them to read a book. There are people at all levels on here, and some may just come on here just to ascertain something that's been bugging them i.e a simple yes or no answer.

[jck]

Hi,

 

As someone who has an alternative perspective of looking at things perhaps I can explain my sentiments.

 

Along with many others with any interest in science we do spend a lot of time trying to understand exactly what has been determined and what is theoretical and there is the crux of the problem.

 

At the same time as passing off the theories as the best explanations science can offer many are determining those explanations as the correct explanations even when theoretical.

 

The amount of thinking time given over to alternative methods of looking at the problems from new perspectives is not slight and does not carry a convenient text book to look up any answers. I can see how it can irritate those who have had to slog through the theories and mathematics while someone else has spent just as many hours pleasantly working things out through thought alone.

 

There was for me absolutely no reason not to consider space existing before the universe without the need for theory but simply as a consideration. The problem arose from that single consideration that the theories were in conflict almost from the start with the logical steps taken to create the universe from that position.

 

This is not actually stating the theory is wrong, it is simply saying that a consideration that space existed before big bang provides a completely different set of answers.

 

Like many others I can certainly agree with the theories providing I only use the theories so that everything has been determined to be correct so there is no point in me not agreeing from that perspective.

 

The fact is that the solution based on space existing before the universe has given me the opportunity to understand the universe more completely from that perspective than any theory ever could, I am now far more capable of debating fundamental issues with theory because of this.

 

The nice thing about my solution is no one has to agree with the findings as it is my personal solution. If anyone does not agree with my logic then why should I insist they agree, each person is entitled to think for themselves and choose the option that they do agree with.

 

By far the worse case scenario for anyone is to have an opinion and to be totally ignored so mostly solid critisism is the method used for all considerations really.

 

The theories have substantial history and support so it is only right that these should be mainstream, there is no reason for anyone to accept the theories on face value should they decide the evidence to be flawed for them personally and why should they?

 

best wishes,

john

jck

[Sequence]

I fall into that first group. I'm sixteen and I know very little compared to most people here. But I listen when someone corects me. As long as they aren't a complete dickhead about it I'm more then happy to take critisicm and learn from it.

[swansont]

Ok, so it might not be laziness, but with public libraries, reliable web-books and other online resources why don't people read up on the basics?

 

I feel that a lot of the questions posted on this forum could be answered by a quick trip to the library.

 

 

That addresses the inquisitive person who admits that they don't know, but want to find out. They will be satisfied with the answer from mainstream science. But science is hard, and not everyone has an aptitude for it, or the aptitude is for different levels of understanding.

 

But the behavior of the "crackpot" is different. Some seem to reject the mainstream, and since both relativity and quantum mechanics are counter-intuitive, it's pretty fertile ground. They come up with a model that works for them, and become convinced it's true. Some may come up with the alternatives first, and never bother to attempt to learn the mainstream. The common ground is the denial when they are shown to be wrong. Some may reject the mainstream just because it's mainstream; a lot of "infinite energy" enthusiasts seem to fall into this category. They just say that the laws of thermo are wrong, and they are going to prove it. Then there are the mystics, who see a connection or pattern where none really exists. They don't really predict anything, so it's not science, but they think it's just sooooo deep it must be worthwhile.

 

A lot of the reinforcing behavior occurs if the crackpot doesn't understand the methods of science. e.g. It is not enough to show that A could have caused B, but you also have to demostrate that other things couldn't have caused B instead. So for some (UFO-ologists and their ilk run rampant here, as well as creationists) finding the niches where science simply doesn't have enough data to explain a phenomenon buttresses their beliefs.

[rajama]

Interesting…

 

Isn’t there a gap here – actually, more a chasm…?

 

I posted some diagrams, related equations and questions in ‘speculations’ a few months ago – didn’t realise it was for ‘crackpots’ only, but maybe the label fits in the context of the posting…

 

I wasn’t that optimistic that anyone would look at them and point out the flaws in the thought processes or ideas presented, but I did hope that someone might explain where I had screwed-up.

 

So, apart from a complaint about the lack of clarity of the posting – granted, I was more than a little hyper when I posted it – I got nothing back…

 

Why?

 

Well, reading around the forum, I assume it was just too much trouble...

 

Firstly, maybe am I a ‘crackpot’ who should be treated with care? Hmmm (still pondering that one) … then, of course, most of the pro-scientist members just don’t seem to have the time.

 

This is not unreasonable: I don’t, so why should they?

 

Also, some synchronicity is involved if a posting is to be noticed: it has to peak the interest of the browser who happens to spot it, and that may not be the pro-scientist who might be able or willing to respond…

 

Also, it’s in ‘speculations’, way down at the foot of the list…

 

So, what is the speculations section for, if the only postings read are regarded as ‘crackpot’ and responding to anything at least attempting scientific rigour is too onerous a task, too chancy an activity, to be considered worthwhile…

 

Any thoughts?

[YT2095]

the last part is incorrect, Speculations is exactly that, an arena to bounce around ideas.

 

the Pseudoscience/Metaphysics section is reserved for the "Crackpot" ideas mainly.

[swansont]

I posted some diagrams, related equations and questions in ‘speculations’ a few months ago – didn’t realise it was for ‘crackpots’ only, but maybe the label fits in the context of the posting…

 

It's not for crackpots only. Crackpot-ish ideas are a subset of speculative ideas. But if it runs counter to or is not addressed by mainstream science, or just plain isn't science (e.g. it's mysticism or philosophy), then it doesn't belong in the science section.

[JohnB]

I don't think it's laziness. A modicum of training in the basics of a science is needed to allow a person to know where to look for the answers he seeks.

 

If we take something like relativity, which articles should be read first? Which articles won't you understand if you haven't read certain other articles? Do you read about Lorentz Transformations before or after aspects of SR?

 

The layman can't answer these questions and doesn't know where to look to find the answers, so he asks.

So for some (UFO-ologists and their ilk run rampant here, as well as creationists) finding the niches where science simply doesn't have enough data to explain a phenomenon buttresses their beliefs.

I disagree. At least in the case of some UFO-ologists. It's not that science doesn't have enough data that bolsters their belief, it's a flat out denial that there is any data at all.

 

If a Ufologist has a record of a sighting, let's say a good one. (I do have a case in mind from the late 1970s that has always intrigued me.) He has eyewitness accounts, (blurry;) ) video and have Air Traffic Control Radar confirmation. Since most people use deductive logic for their thinking, what does this tell us?

 

1. It was not imagined, as there is Video and Radar confirmation.

2. It was not a malfunction of equipment. As the three sources agree with each other.

In other words, it was a real event. Now they apply deductive logic to try to find out what it was and get;

1. It was not Venus. (You can't see Venus on Radar.)

2. It was not moonlight reflecting off cabbage leaves. (See 3 above.)

3. It was not a known aircraft. (By it's behaviour and ATC should know all aircraft in the area.)

4. For the older cases, the "Secret Experimental Aircraft" just doesn't wash for two reasons. a) Why is it still secret? and b) The performance 30-40 years ago was superior to the best available today.

5. Depending on behaviour you can rule out a number of natural phenomena.

 

So they are left with a real event with no known cause. A mystery, one of the possible solutions of which is an alien craft. They then put their hand up and say "Excuse me, but this seems odd" (I wish they could be so polite:-) )and get called a "Saucer Freak" for their troubles. Or someone puts up a poorly thought out "explanation" that has already been ruled out on the available evidence.

 

Often the layman also has the (probably Hollywood inspired) idea that the physical scientist is a person that loves solving mysteries. Put a mystery or anomaly in front of one and he/she won't come up for air until they have an answer. So a seeming indifference to their particular mystery doesn't fit the image, and the poor fellow just doesn't understand why.

 

None of the above post applies to kooks.

[swansont]

The flaw is in concluding that the images were flying saucers. All you know is what they aren't. But the list is potentially long, which may be one reason why the people involved aren't motivated to figure out that it was actually a flock of geese, or whatever. The UFO-ologist, though, generally doesn't apply the same standard to the evidence, and is convinced of the answer despite it not being conclusive by scientific standards; they've usually come to their conclusion first, before evidence has been analyzed. That's the problem, and why it's not science.

[JohnB]

Agreed. I have met a few though who don't draw the conclusion first. They generally finish up with two main possibilities. (After eliminating those that don't fit the evidence.) Either;

 

a. A Flying saucer. (Simply because it can't be ruled out.) or

b. An unknown or poorly understood natural phenomena.

 

For this group, it's not so much "Hey looky here, we've got proof of aliens" as "Well, we've ruled out everything we can think of, I wonder what the hell it was?". Which to my mind is much healthier attitude.

 

To be honest, I've even met some Ufologists who don't think aliens are involved at all. For most people UFO=Aliens but for these guys it means what it says Unidentified Flying Objects. It's not science and they realise that, it's more like the detective in a mystery novel. They've found an unknown and would like to know, to help solve the mystery.

[wilgory]

To Nobody in particular,

 

Imagine Ptolemy talking to a group of fellow "scientists". He tells them that he's working on a geocentric universe hypothesis. After much discussion, one well respected member of the group leans over to another and says "That Ptolemy, he is such a crackpot".

 

Get the picture?

 

Is someone's crackpottedness relative? (chuckle here)

 

I may be a real crackpot. That's for others to decide. If, however, I am. I want to know. Although I will not accept opinion as fact.

 

It would be a mistake to consider my desire for simplicity (things are complicated enough), my lack of proper grammar, and ignorance concerning the more complicated levels of math, as a lack of intelligence.

 

I'm smart enough to leave the heavy lifting to the big boys.

 

As far as why I posted my "speculation".

 

1. I understood this to be a public forum. If it is meant to be otherwise, then a statement on the homepage would have been beneficial. The search message mentioned earlier would undoubtedly help.

 

2. If while reading I have a question, I can't query the book for clarity.

 

3. No social network where I can discuss the subjects I prefer.

 

4. I have searched the internet and not found anything specific to my query.

 

5. I am somewhat lazy when it comes to pursuing wealth and fame. Not when searching for understanding.

 

I doubt if many people will go to the library to understand what's wrong with their car. When a trip to the local garage is far more likely to get to the heart of the problem.