How to shake science to its core with your new ingenious theory...

[padren]

(tongue in cheek humor only, but could resist after reading the psuedoscience section as of late )

 

So, you have a brand new theory, or had an idea that turned you on to some research that supports your idea but is not getting the revolutionary accolades it deserves. But now you are stuck: all the people you know are too thick to get it, or humor you for a moment and change the subject. Which way do you go to get to the top? Well, don't worry, follow this easy guide, and soon you'll be on your way to the notoriety you deserve:

 

This guide covers the first, most vital step in the process: getting discredited by a science community forum. All the great revolutionary theories in history have been met with resistance, its time to ensure yours does too. So, first things first...

 

1. Choose a good thread title:
   You want to make sure your thread gets noticed, so a title is very important. The most basic forms are "[famous physicist] was wrong - how [x] really works," or just take famous theory titles and add words like "unified" or "debunked" depending on your slant. You may want to add "YourUsername's" to the begin if you've also carefully chosen a flashy username.
    
   
2. Get out the Basics:
   State how you think things work but don't be too specific, and be sure to mention when older theories are wrong, and thus contradict your theory. This is very important, because in later replies, you'll have to defend your idea by saying these other theories are incomplete and don't fully describe everything in the universe. This should not be too hard, as no accepted theory ever fully describes anything, but simply is tested to see if it works with observable measurements and can produce verifiable predictions that match future observations. As you state how things work, you want your readers to keep an open mind, so minimize the amount of observable data that does into your theory - they'll get distracted just trying to verify it before learning how it all goes together. Stick to aspects of how things were a long time ago, how they'll be in the distant future, things that are very small, or things that are very intermittent if you can. There is no need to get distracted and muddied down at this point.
    
   
3. The First Round:
   At this point, you want to wait for responses, and as such when asked about how aspects of your theory manage to address certain issues, you can go into further detail. Credibility is everything, so be sure to choose a condescending tone as if you are talking to a child... specifically one you don't like, and want to feel bad. Phrases such as "Well, obviously..." "What you aren't getting is..." and "If you were paying attention you'd realize..." are all good ways to start a sentence.
   It doesn't hurt to remind people that their classical science educations may have crippled their creativity and ability to see beyond conventional thinking. This will establish you as a true "outside the box" thinker.
    
   
4. Never Give Ground:
   Chances are your theory is special because it involves cutting edge ideas that are really hard to observe in the universe with today's technology - otherwise anyone could have thought of it. This leads to the most important factor in a constructive discussion: near-immeasurable data is your friend. Take an exotic rarely measured factor, and insist it is integral to your theory while ignored in classical experiments. If people insist the classical experiments produce "expected results" remind them the exotic factor has little impact on earth, or perhaps in most situations, and that their units of accuracy are simply not enough to validate the classic experiments. Its not like they can prove you're wrong, right? Since the burden of evidence is on them, you'll be in a good position.
    
   
5. The British Bulldog:
   Keep working within the second two principles, and you can get pretty far. Stick with the measurable data issue as long as you can, before you introduce the falsification methods that The Powers That Be have been using to keep us in the dark ages of true understanding. People must see how well all the parts of your theory click together (don't let them call a 'circular reference' on you) if they are going to realize just how big the implications are. Since people have been conditioned by The Powers That Be to subconsciously shun these new ideas, save them for later as needed should the discussion derail into nitpicking your theory instead of proving it false.
    
   
6. When to leave in a huff:
   If your idea is truly revolutionary, chances are it will not be accepted, and probably not even understood by the conventional science community. Many are stuffy people, who do not care if you see a UFO, they only care if you can prove it beyond all shadow of a doubt with complete disregard to the sheer number of coincidences that only make sense when viewed through your theory. If you were to warn these people "The British are coming!" they would calmly offer an treatise on the fallacies of anecdotal evidence.
   At this point, they probably will have become insistent that you either explain some single irrelevant inconsistency or explain some observation they can't understand occurring if your theory is valid. They have exposed themselves as the close minded people they are, and confirmed your theory is so cutting edge that the conventional community is just not ready for it. As you take the sign that its time to exit stage left, leave embittered comments, generally attacking them for not disproving your theory, or for their failure to acknowledge new pages of links you cite critical of their favored models every time they try to poke a hole in yours.
   

 

At this point, you should have successfully passed the first phase of your journey, getting discredited by a science community forum. With this vetting behind you, you are now ready to be rejected by of Scientific American and even greater, more prestigious magazines and journals.

 

Good luck in all your endeavors!

[Kyrisch]

Don't forget to make a statement that goes something along the lines of "If [revolutionary scientist of the past (Einstein is recommended)] presented his theory, he would get treated like this, too!"

[ParanoiA]

That ought to be a sticky, that's funny as hell.

[John Cuthber]

You also forgot the importance of using scientific terms wrongly. "Energy" for example is widely misused, "Entropy" does even better. Another usefull trick is to make up new definitions for words that are related to, but not the same as, the normal definitions.

[JohnB]

I love it.

Another usefull trick is to make up new definitions for words that are related to, but not the same as, the normal definitions.

Oh yes, that's a definite.

 

Padren, you need to put in a comparison to Galileo somewhere.

[John Cuthber]

The BEST thing to do with Galileo is to remind OTHER people that he DROPPED things from a tower to see IF he was right. Really, he didn't need to convince himself; he was trying to convince others who didn't understand logic.

Oh, and don't forget to use inapropriate capital letters, underlining and italicisation.

 

Also, remember, when all else fails, tell lies and make up data. Nobody can run a polygraph test on you through an internet link.

If you say "I levitated my kid brother (Mass aprox 40Kg) using a bicycle dynamo and a fridge magent!" nobody can prove you didn't.

With a bit of luck your kid brother will turn up (using the same computse of course) and confirm this.

[Phi for All]

That ought to be a sticky, that's funny as hell.

Padren, do you mind if we sticky and close your OP for Pseudoscience & Speculation? I'd just copy it over and leave this thread here for comments. I agree with everyone, this is really funny.

[iNow]

The challenge with that, Phi, is that most posters with these types ideas post them directly to the primary forums (like physics or relativity or biology, etc.). It's only after a staff member logs in and sees that it's yet another mental masturbation with no empirical or mainstream support that it gets moved to P&S. Hence, making this thread as a sticky in P&S would not necessarily help it to be seen by the folks who need to read it the most.

 

At least, I think that's the case. I've been wrong once before in my life.

[padren]

A sticky copy in P&S would be fine by me - I considered posting there, but I didn't want it to come across as an attack on any of the threads, as there are a few there that had a 'bit of an influence' on a number of points.

 

Regarding the comments, I quoted two of the sections and made modifications in blue, in case you want those to make it into the sticky (too much time passed to edit original I think, or I have Button Blindness again)

 

• Get out the Basics:
  State how you think things work but don't be too specific, and be sure to mention when older theories are wrong, and thus contradict your theory. This is very important, because in later replies, you'll have to defend your idea by saying these other theories are incomplete and don't fully describe everything in the universe. This should not be too hard, as no accepted theory ever fully describes anything, but simply is tested to see if it works with observable measurements and can produce verifiable predictions that match future observations. As you state how things work, you want your readers to keep an open mind, so minimize the amount of observable data that does into your theory - they'll get distracted just trying to verify it before learning how it all goes together. Stick to aspects of how things were a long time ago, how they'll be in the distant future, things that are very small, or things that are very intermittent if you can. There is no need to get distracted and muddied down at this point.
  Feel free to use commonly accepted scientific definitions in ways that are not classically applicable. Terms such as "Energy" and "Entropy" work very well for this, and when you are criticized for their use later, it will validate just how revolutionary your idea really is - even the most basic scientific definitions need to be challenged to house such a revolutionary theory!
   
   
  
• When to leave in a huff:
  If your idea is truly revolutionary, chances are it will not be accepted, and probably not even understood by the conventional science community. Many are stuffy people, who do not care if you see a UFO, they only care if you can prove it beyond all shadow of a doubt with complete disregard to the sheer number of coincidences that only make sense when viewed through your theory. If you were to warn these people "The British are coming!" they would calmly offer an treatise on the fallacies of anecdotal evidence.
  At this point, they probably will have become insistent that you either explain some single irrelevant inconsistency or explain some observation they can't understand occurring if your theory is valid. They have exposed themselves as the close minded people they are, and confirmed your theory is so cutting edge that the conventional community is just not ready for it. Use the tribulations of other scientific revolutionaries to draw parallels. After all, Einstein was a patent clerk for a very long time. Galileo was challenged by just about everyone. Remind people that these individuals were persecuted by the ruling elite when they were unknowns in just the same way as you are now. Blame all the lack of progress and problems in the world on them. As you take the sign that its time to exit stage left, leave embittered comments, generally attacking them for not disproving your theory, or for their failure to acknowledge new pages of links you cite critical of their favored models every time they try to poke a hole in yours.
  

 

I am glad people like it, as far as a guide goes though, I doubt it can provide anything useful to "Revolutionary Theorists" as they already seem to follow the formula to perfection.

[traveler]

I think I'm doing well, then. Should be at the top in no time. I'm hoping by next week I'll be on the world news.

 

Edited October 7, 2008 by traveler